https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762594 Confiscation and penalty for alleged misdeclaration were unsustainable where the importer sought amendment of the bill of entry, excess quantity was plausibly explained as a supplier's error, and no deliberate misdeclaration or fraudulent intent was proved; the confiscation and penalties were set aside. Confiscation based on stock discrepancies and loose papers also failed because the records were not corroborated by independent evidence linking the goods to illegal import or removal; the redemption fine was set aside. Duty demand for alleged shortages, unbilled clearances, and expired beer cases was likewise unsustainable because clandestine removal was not proved and expiry of the approval period was not shown; the demand, interest, and consequential liabilities were set aside. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762594 Confiscation and penalty for alleged misdeclaration were unsustainable where the importer sought amendment of the bill of entry, excess quantity was plausibly explained as a supplier's error, and no deliberate misdeclaration or fraudulent intent was proved; the confiscation and penalties were set aside. Confiscation based on stock discrepancies and loose papers also failed because the records were not corroborated by independent evidence linking the goods to illegal import or removal; the redemption fine was set aside. Duty demand for alleged shortages, unbilled clearances, and expired beer cases was likewise unsustainable because clandestine removal was not proved and expiry of the approval period was not shown; the demand, interest, and consequential liabilities were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762594