https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348699 The court upheld the impugned order confiscating Sweet Whey Powder under the Customs Act, 1962, and imposing a penalty, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on contradictory lab reports. It ruled that the testing officer's presence for cross-examination was unnecessary, as no malafides were alleged, and dismissed the writ petition for lack of establishing factual discrepancies. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to appeal, with the appellate authority instructed to exclude a specific period for limitation calculation, clarifying that the ruling's scope was limited to maintainability and would not impact future appeal proceedings. en-us Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348699 The court upheld the impugned order confiscating Sweet Whey Powder under the Customs Act, 1962, and imposing a penalty, rejecting the petitioner's challenge based on contradictory lab reports. It ruled that the testing officer's presence for cross-examination was unnecessary, as no malafides were alleged, and dismissed the writ petition for lack of establishing factual discrepancies. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to appeal, with the appellate authority instructed to exclude a specific period for limitation calculation, clarifying that the ruling's scope was limited to maintainability and would not impact future appeal proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348699