https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125026 Where imported goods were part of the same lot earlier accepted as lawfully imported, the tribunal held that confiscation for misdeclaration could not stand when the railway receipt described the consignment as silk yarn and the discrepancy in a courier covering note was only clerical. The import documents and the seizure from railway custody supported a plausible explanation, and the prior release of part of the same consignment, unchallenged by the department, further weakened the allegation. The charge of wrong description was therefore not made out, the confiscation was set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:20:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125026 Where imported goods were part of the same lot earlier accepted as lawfully imported, the tribunal held that confiscation for misdeclaration could not stand when the railway receipt described the consignment as silk yarn and the discrepancy in a courier covering note was only clerical. The import documents and the seizure from railway custody supported a plausible explanation, and the prior release of part of the same consignment, unchallenged by the department, further weakened the allegation. The charge of wrong description was therefore not made out, the confiscation was set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125026