https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443678 Ethephon was treated as a regulated insecticide, and import without the registration required under the Insecticides Act, 1968 was considered contrary to law and therefore liable to seizure and confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The claimed exemption under section 38 of the Insecticides Act depended on factual and technical material, and the burden of establishing that exemption rested on the importer; such questions were left to the competent adjudicating authority. The absence of an operative notification under section 11(3) of the Customs Act did not bar customs action, because that provision had not been brought into force and did not limit the existing confiscation powers. en-us Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Sep 2023 07:41:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443678 Ethephon was treated as a regulated insecticide, and import without the registration required under the Insecticides Act, 1968 was considered contrary to law and therefore liable to seizure and confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The claimed exemption under section 38 of the Insecticides Act depended on factual and technical material, and the burden of establishing that exemption rested on the importer; such questions were left to the competent adjudicating authority. The absence of an operative notification under section 11(3) of the Customs Act did not bar customs action, because that provision had not been brought into force and did not limit the existing confiscation powers. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443678