https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97234 A later Board circular or change in departmental practice cannot, by itself, justify confiscation or penalty where the importer acted before the change and had already shipped the goods under the exemption practice then prevailing. The stated approach was that Notification No. 23/98 had been extended in practice before Circular No. 74/98 introduced a stricter end-use clarification, so the importer could not reasonably have anticipated the revised position. Confiscation and penalty were therefore not warranted and were set aside. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:23:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97234 A later Board circular or change in departmental practice cannot, by itself, justify confiscation or penalty where the importer acted before the change and had already shipped the goods under the exemption practice then prevailing. The stated approach was that Notification No. 23/98 had been extended in practice before Circular No. 74/98 introduced a stricter end-use clarification, so the importer could not reasonably have anticipated the revised position. Confiscation and penalty were therefore not warranted and were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 23 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97234