https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41592 The HC of Madras held that customs seizure and confiscation action require a statutory reasonable belief, supported by reliable material, that the exported goods are prohibited goods. On conflicting botanical reports, the Court preferred the later scientific report from the Central Research Institute for Siddha because it gave a clear macroscopic and chromatographic basis for identification and showed the consignment contained Vinca rosea root and stem with Rauwolfia canescens stems, not Rauwolfia serpentina. As the alleged banned item was not established and Rauwolfia canescens stems were not shown to be prohibited for export, the foundation for seizure, show-cause notice, adjudication, and penalty was absent. The customs proceedings were quashed and the goods were directed to be released. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:25:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41592 The HC of Madras held that customs seizure and confiscation action require a statutory reasonable belief, supported by reliable material, that the exported goods are prohibited goods. On conflicting botanical reports, the Court preferred the later scientific report from the Central Research Institute for Siddha because it gave a clear macroscopic and chromatographic basis for identification and showed the consignment contained Vinca rosea root and stem with Rauwolfia canescens stems, not Rauwolfia serpentina. As the alleged banned item was not established and Rauwolfia canescens stems were not shown to be prohibited for export, the foundation for seizure, show-cause notice, adjudication, and penalty was absent. The customs proceedings were quashed and the goods were directed to be released. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41592