https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242755 Confiscation and penalty for misdeclaration of imported second-hand looms could not be sustained because the Department failed to prove, with reliable and cogent evidence, that the declared year of manufacture was false. Serial-number comparisons, unauthenticated enquiry material, and the alleged takeover history of the manufacturer were insufficient, especially where the machines were not examined by a Chartered Engineer at import or seizure and the importer's representative did not admit misdeclaration. The alleged violation of the import policy was therefore not established, and the benefit of doubt went to the importer, resulting in setting aside of the impugned order and consequential relief. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242755 Confiscation and penalty for misdeclaration of imported second-hand looms could not be sustained because the Department failed to prove, with reliable and cogent evidence, that the declared year of manufacture was false. Serial-number comparisons, unauthenticated enquiry material, and the alleged takeover history of the manufacturer were insufficient, especially where the machines were not examined by a Chartered Engineer at import or seizure and the importer's representative did not admit misdeclaration. The alleged violation of the import policy was therefore not established, and the benefit of doubt went to the importer, resulting in setting aside of the impugned order and consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 03 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242755