https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290306 A later fiscal or penal amendment was treated as prospective and not retroactive, so it could not validate liability for a completed export declaration made under the pre-amendment Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. On that basis, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. However, the customs order also rested on independent findings of misdescription and incorrect value, which attracted Section 167(37) read with the statutory duty to state the true particulars in the shipping bill. The confiscation therefore survived, but the personal penalty was quashed because it exceeded the limit applicable under Section 167(37) and was referable to the failed Section 167(8) basis; refund was confined to the penalty amount. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290306 A later fiscal or penal amendment was treated as prospective and not retroactive, so it could not validate liability for a completed export declaration made under the pre-amendment Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. On that basis, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. However, the customs order also rested on independent findings of misdescription and incorrect value, which attracted Section 167(37) read with the statutory duty to state the true particulars in the shipping bill. The confiscation therefore survived, but the personal penalty was quashed because it exceeded the limit applicable under Section 167(37) and was referable to the failed Section 167(8) basis; refund was confined to the penalty amount. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290306