https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408030 Later departmental clarification on Equipment Type Approvals for identical goods manufactured in different countries of the same brand owner meant that 14 approvals could not be treated as invalid merely because the country of origin differed from the named manufacturer. Those approvals were therefore valid and the goods covered by them were not liable to confiscation. Only two approvals were found to be fake, so confiscation and penalty survived only to that extent. The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was accordingly reduced to reflect the corrected factual position, while the rectification application succeeded in part on the mistaken premise about the ETAs. en-us Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 May 2021 08:30:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408030 Later departmental clarification on Equipment Type Approvals for identical goods manufactured in different countries of the same brand owner meant that 14 approvals could not be treated as invalid merely because the country of origin differed from the named manufacturer. Those approvals were therefore valid and the goods covered by them were not liable to confiscation. Only two approvals were found to be fake, so confiscation and penalty survived only to that extent. The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was accordingly reduced to reflect the corrected factual position, while the rectification application succeeded in part on the mistaken premise about the ETAs. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 25 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408030