https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111633 Confiscation of imported goods and penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 were held unsustainable because the adjudication rested on an alleged DGTD clarification that was not on record and was not shown to have been supplied to the importers before decision. The competent authority for import-policy clarification was the Joint Chief Controller or Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, and the importers had produced a favourable clarification from that authority. As the impugned order gave no reason for rejecting that clarification, there was no valid basis for confiscation, and the penalty also failed. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:38:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111633 Confiscation of imported goods and penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 were held unsustainable because the adjudication rested on an alleged DGTD clarification that was not on record and was not shown to have been supplied to the importers before decision. The competent authority for import-policy clarification was the Joint Chief Controller or Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, and the importers had produced a favourable clarification from that authority. As the impugned order gave no reason for rejecting that clarification, there was no valid basis for confiscation, and the penalty also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111633