https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170386 Separately identifiable non-offending goods could not be confiscated merely because they were packed in the same carton as prohibited items, so the confiscation and redemption fine on those goods were set aside. Python-skin wallets were treated as prohibited wildlife articles under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and, absent prior wildlife clearance, their absolute confiscation was upheld. Re-export of the wallets was permitted because they were shown to be lawful in the country of origin and a CITES certificate had been obtained, and no redemption fine could be imposed for re-export. The penalty for importing prohibited goods without the required clearance was sustained. en-us Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170386 Separately identifiable non-offending goods could not be confiscated merely because they were packed in the same carton as prohibited items, so the confiscation and redemption fine on those goods were set aside. Python-skin wallets were treated as prohibited wildlife articles under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and, absent prior wildlife clearance, their absolute confiscation was upheld. Re-export of the wallets was permitted because they were shown to be lawful in the country of origin and a CITES certificate had been obtained, and no redemption fine could be imposed for re-export. The penalty for importing prohibited goods without the required clearance was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170386