https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30283 Imported goods shown by the evidence to be parts of a machine later imported and cleared as second-hand capital goods were not liable to confiscation merely because the bill of entry did not use the words "used" or "second-hand". The linked purchase order, matching invoice values, importer's disclosure, and Chartered Engineer's report supported the character of the goods, and Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 did not make such goods restricted on the basis assumed by the authorities. On that basis, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and the consequential penalty under Section 112(a) were not sustainable and were set aside. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30283 Imported goods shown by the evidence to be parts of a machine later imported and cleared as second-hand capital goods were not liable to confiscation merely because the bill of entry did not use the words "used" or "second-hand". The linked purchase order, matching invoice values, importer's disclosure, and Chartered Engineer's report supported the character of the goods, and Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 did not make such goods restricted on the basis assumed by the authorities. On that basis, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) and the consequential penalty under Section 112(a) were not sustainable and were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30283