https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115797 Where goods were wrongly shipped and re-export was permitted, confiscation and consequential redemption fine or penalty could not be sustained in the absence of proof of misdeclaration. Rejection of the exemption claim, by itself, did not establish deliberate misdeclaration or an attempt to clear prohibited goods. The prompt request for re-export, accepted by the authorities, supported the factual position that the shipment was not as ordered. Applying the principle that confiscatory action requires proof of misdeclaration, the adverse penal consequences were set aside. en-us Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:30:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115797 Where goods were wrongly shipped and re-export was permitted, confiscation and consequential redemption fine or penalty could not be sustained in the absence of proof of misdeclaration. Rejection of the exemption claim, by itself, did not establish deliberate misdeclaration or an attempt to clear prohibited goods. The prompt request for re-export, accepted by the authorities, supported the factual position that the shipment was not as ordered. Applying the principle that confiscatory action requires proof of misdeclaration, the adverse penal consequences were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115797