https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43218 Goods meant for transhipment to Kabul were held to fall within Section 54 of the Customs Act, and confiscation could not be sustained in the absence of a Section 11 notification prohibiting the relevant import or export. The Court also found no material to treat the matter as one involving deceptive conduct under Section 11, because the goods' description did not justify that conclusion. Although an appeal was available, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction and set aside the confiscation order as unsustainable in law, directing release of the goods for transhipment. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:59:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43218 Goods meant for transhipment to Kabul were held to fall within Section 54 of the Customs Act, and confiscation could not be sustained in the absence of a Section 11 notification prohibiting the relevant import or export. The Court also found no material to treat the matter as one involving deceptive conduct under Section 11, because the goods' description did not justify that conclusion. Although an appeal was available, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction and set aside the confiscation order as unsustainable in law, directing release of the goods for transhipment. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43218