https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247279 Goods re-imported under a bill of entry were not misdeclared where the chemical name was disclosed, and omission of the generic name did not amount to a false declaration. Customs had itself sent the sample for examination, and the department's case wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the traders had manufactured the goods. Even if the manufacturer had breached the Drugs and Cosmetics law, that did not by itself make the imported goods prohibited under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly as the Import Policy did not bar the item. Confiscation was therefore not justified. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247279 Goods re-imported under a bill of entry were not misdeclared where the chemical name was disclosed, and omission of the generic name did not amount to a false declaration. Customs had itself sent the sample for examination, and the department's case wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the traders had manufactured the goods. Even if the manufacturer had breached the Drugs and Cosmetics law, that did not by itself make the imported goods prohibited under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly as the Import Policy did not bar the item. Confiscation was therefore not justified. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247279