https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346289 Health products misdespatched to India were held not to be shown as a bona fide mistake because the invoice and airway bill identified a Delhi consignee, and the goods fell within the statutory prohibition under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. They were therefore treated as prohibited goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. After confiscation, re-export was permitted only subject to lawful charges, because the power under Section 125 did not displace the custodian's entitlement to demurrage or ground rent, and the cargo-handling regulation operated subject to other laws. The writ petition failed, and re-export was allowed only on payment of the demanded charges. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2017 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346289 Health products misdespatched to India were held not to be shown as a bona fide mistake because the invoice and airway bill identified a Delhi consignee, and the goods fell within the statutory prohibition under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. They were therefore treated as prohibited goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. After confiscation, re-export was permitted only subject to lawful charges, because the power under Section 125 did not displace the custodian's entitlement to demurrage or ground rent, and the cargo-handling regulation operated subject to other laws. The writ petition failed, and re-export was allowed only on payment of the demanded charges. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346289