https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242142 Imported second-hand capital goods were treated as freely importable, and no material established that a specific import licence was required. The burden to show a licensing restriction lay on the Revenue, which was not discharged. A discrepancy between the address in the airway bill and the bill of entry was explained by the appellant's registered office and branch office addresses and was treated as merely technical. On that basis, the discrepancy did not justify confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty, and consequential relief followed. en-us Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jan 2014 18:38:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242142 Imported second-hand capital goods were treated as freely importable, and no material established that a specific import licence was required. The burden to show a licensing restriction lay on the Revenue, which was not discharged. A discrepancy between the address in the airway bill and the bill of entry was explained by the appellant's registered office and branch office addresses and was treated as merely technical. On that basis, the discrepancy did not justify confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242142