https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120372 Imported batteries were required to bear the name and address of the actual manufacturer under the applicable marking requirement, and packing or testing carried out in India did not satisfy that condition. Non-compliance supported confiscation as misdescription under the Customs Act, 1962. Where confiscation was sustained but the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretational issue, the monetary consequences could be moderated; on that footing, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced because the earlier absence of objection, demurrage burden, and willingness to pay differential duty made the original quantum excessive. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:34:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120372 Imported batteries were required to bear the name and address of the actual manufacturer under the applicable marking requirement, and packing or testing carried out in India did not satisfy that condition. Non-compliance supported confiscation as misdescription under the Customs Act, 1962. Where confiscation was sustained but the dispute arose from a bona fide interpretational issue, the monetary consequences could be moderated; on that footing, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced because the earlier absence of objection, demurrage burden, and willingness to pay differential duty made the original quantum excessive. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120372