https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357230 Export consignments were held to satisfy the DGFT notification requirements under the relevant export notifications, and the adverse laboratory report was not treated as conclusive because retesting before another laboratory had been sought and refused without plausible reasons. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same issue and held that, on these facts, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief was granted. en-us Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:45:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357230 Export consignments were held to satisfy the DGFT notification requirements under the relevant export notifications, and the adverse laboratory report was not treated as conclusive because retesting before another laboratory had been sought and refused without plausible reasons. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same issue and held that, on these facts, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief was granted. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357230