https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152615 The court upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the importance of accurate declarations for import purposes. It ruled that lack of detailed information in the declaration justified confiscation, rejecting the argument of lack of knowledge by the appellant. Even if the goods were not physically available, confiscation could be upheld if cash proceeds from disposed goods were in possession of the department. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision on redemption fine reduction and directed duty calculation based on the realized amount from goods' disposal. The appeal was rejected, confirming decisions on confiscation, redemption fine, and duty calculation. Compliance with procedural requirements was stressed, and confiscation under Section 111(m) was upheld due to inadequate declaration. en-us Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:23:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152615 The court upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the importance of accurate declarations for import purposes. It ruled that lack of detailed information in the declaration justified confiscation, rejecting the argument of lack of knowledge by the appellant. Even if the goods were not physically available, confiscation could be upheld if cash proceeds from disposed goods were in possession of the department. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision on redemption fine reduction and directed duty calculation based on the realized amount from goods' disposal. The appeal was rejected, confirming decisions on confiscation, redemption fine, and duty calculation. Compliance with procedural requirements was stressed, and confiscation under Section 111(m) was upheld due to inadequate declaration. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152615