https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334738 Expert laboratory evidence showing that the imported drill bits did not conform to high speed steel and were instead of mild alloy nature meant the customs authority could not override that technical finding with its own assessment; the allegations of misdeclaration, undervaluation and resulting confiscation were therefore unsustainable. Confiscation also could not rest on a customs notification linked to the repealed Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, because a notification inconsistent with the later statutory position could not be enforced on that basis after repeal. The impugned order was set aside and relief followed. en-us Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334738 Expert laboratory evidence showing that the imported drill bits did not conform to high speed steel and were instead of mild alloy nature meant the customs authority could not override that technical finding with its own assessment; the allegations of misdeclaration, undervaluation and resulting confiscation were therefore unsustainable. Confiscation also could not rest on a customs notification linked to the repealed Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, because a notification inconsistent with the later statutory position could not be enforced on that basis after repeal. The impugned order was set aside and relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334738