https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431950 An enabling governmental measure implementing UN resolutions did not, by itself, create a customs prohibition on import; absent an express prohibition or operative notification under the Customs Act, confiscation under section 111(d) could not be sustained. The vessel's import was therefore not shown to be prohibited in force. Alleged misdeclaration also failed because the bill of entry correctly recorded the IMO number and the vessel name matched ownership documents, with no material proving wilful suppression or misstatement. As the prohibition foundation failed, the redemption fine and penalties likewise could not stand, and relief followed against confiscation and consequential penalties. en-us Thu, 22 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Dec 2022 11:08:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431950 An enabling governmental measure implementing UN resolutions did not, by itself, create a customs prohibition on import; absent an express prohibition or operative notification under the Customs Act, confiscation under section 111(d) could not be sustained. The vessel's import was therefore not shown to be prohibited in force. Alleged misdeclaration also failed because the bill of entry correctly recorded the IMO number and the vessel name matched ownership documents, with no material proving wilful suppression or misstatement. As the prohibition foundation failed, the redemption fine and penalties likewise could not stand, and relief followed against confiscation and consequential penalties. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 22 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431950