https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110525 The appeals by agents of masters of vessels against confiscation orders under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 111 of the Act for cargo unloaded from ships were successful. The Commissioner's decision to confiscate the goods was based on improper procedures during import and unloading. However, as pending applications for manifest amendments were not rejected, the confiscation was deemed premature. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely manifest submission and permission for unloading. Ultimately, the confiscation orders were set aside, ruling that the goods were not liable for confiscation under the specified clauses of the Act. en-us Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:45:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110525 The appeals by agents of masters of vessels against confiscation orders under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 111 of the Act for cargo unloaded from ships were successful. The Commissioner's decision to confiscate the goods was based on improper procedures during import and unloading. However, as pending applications for manifest amendments were not rejected, the confiscation was deemed premature. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely manifest submission and permission for unloading. Ultimately, the confiscation orders were set aside, ruling that the goods were not liable for confiscation under the specified clauses of the Act. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110525