https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110360 The appellant's challenge against the seizure of chemicals of foreign origin from their factory, demand of duty, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition was successful. The court found that the appellant's lack of satisfactory explanation for the goods did not justify the actions taken by the officers. The court ruled that Section 28 of the Act could not be applied to goods purchased post-customs clearance and that the confiscation of goods under clause (d) of Section 111 was unsustainable due to the lack of proof of smuggling. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:28:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110360 The appellant's challenge against the seizure of chemicals of foreign origin from their factory, demand of duty, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition was successful. The court found that the appellant's lack of satisfactory explanation for the goods did not justify the actions taken by the officers. The court ruled that Section 28 of the Act could not be applied to goods purchased post-customs clearance and that the confiscation of goods under clause (d) of Section 111 was unsustainable due to the lack of proof of smuggling. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110360