https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109810 The appeal challenged the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to discrepancies between the imported goods and the description in the import license. The Addl. Commissioner correctly rejected the license, leading to the assessment of normal customs duty. The enhancement of goods value was justified based on comparisons with similar goods imported from Japan. The imposition of penalties for non-compliance was upheld, citing the absence of mens rea as not a defense. However, the Tribunal ultimately set aside the confiscation and penalty, allowing the appeal based on findings that the goods were not liable for confiscation and values were not misdeclared. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:35:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109810 The appeal challenged the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to discrepancies between the imported goods and the description in the import license. The Addl. Commissioner correctly rejected the license, leading to the assessment of normal customs duty. The enhancement of goods value was justified based on comparisons with similar goods imported from Japan. The imposition of penalties for non-compliance was upheld, citing the absence of mens rea as not a defense. However, the Tribunal ultimately set aside the confiscation and penalty, allowing the appeal based on findings that the goods were not liable for confiscation and values were not misdeclared. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109810