https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338439 Imported crocodile-leather goods attracted confiscation issues only in relation to the species expressly covered by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Crocodylus porosus was within the prohibited schedule, while the other varieties were not. The original adjudication had permitted re-export without ordering confiscation, and that part of the order was not challenged. In that setting, the Revenue could not later seek confiscation and penalty through appeal. The impugned order was sustained and the confiscatory and penal consequences sought by the Revenue were rejected. en-us Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Feb 2017 10:12:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338439 Imported crocodile-leather goods attracted confiscation issues only in relation to the species expressly covered by the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Crocodylus porosus was within the prohibited schedule, while the other varieties were not. The original adjudication had permitted re-export without ordering confiscation, and that part of the order was not challenged. In that setting, the Revenue could not later seek confiscation and penalty through appeal. The impugned order was sustained and the confiscatory and penal consequences sought by the Revenue were rejected. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338439