https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42372 Imported consignments were examined against the licence and laboratory material, and the Court accepted that the goods were brandy concentrate intended for blending rather than prohibited over-proof brandy. It also held that the revisional authority could not disregard an earlier revisional decision involving identical goods and identical licences where relief had already been granted, and rejected the attempt to distinguish that ruling on burden of proof. On merits, the finding that the goods were not concentrate was treated as unsustainable, and reliance on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature and other speculative considerations for classification was disapproved. The confiscation and penalty order under the Customs Act was therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:41:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42372 Imported consignments were examined against the licence and laboratory material, and the Court accepted that the goods were brandy concentrate intended for blending rather than prohibited over-proof brandy. It also held that the revisional authority could not disregard an earlier revisional decision involving identical goods and identical licences where relief had already been granted, and rejected the attempt to distinguish that ruling on burden of proof. On merits, the finding that the goods were not concentrate was treated as unsustainable, and reliance on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature and other speculative considerations for classification was disapproved. The confiscation and penalty order under the Customs Act was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 07 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42372