https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338593 Re-imported pharmaceuticals declared as rejected non-standard goods were not held liable to confiscation under sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, because the Bill of Entry description was not found incorrect and a discrepancy in batch numbers did not by itself establish that the goods were not the same as those exported or that there was a misdeclaration. As the foundation for confiscation failed, the consequential penalty under section 112(a) also could not be sustained and was set aside. The Tribunal treated the appeal as successful and declined to uphold the confiscation rationale on the facts found. en-us Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338593 Re-imported pharmaceuticals declared as rejected non-standard goods were not held liable to confiscation under sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, because the Bill of Entry description was not found incorrect and a discrepancy in batch numbers did not by itself establish that the goods were not the same as those exported or that there was a misdeclaration. As the foundation for confiscation failed, the consequential penalty under section 112(a) also could not be sustained and was set aside. The Tribunal treated the appeal as successful and declined to uphold the confiscation rationale on the facts found. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338593