https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50375 Cargo withdrawn for repacking before export clearance under Section 51 had not yet acquired the character of export goods under Section 2(18), so the conduct remained preparatory rather than an attempt to improperly export. On that footing, confiscation under Section 113(d) and Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable, and the confiscation order failed. Because confiscation was not established, the foundation for penalties under Section 114 also disappeared. The record did not prove actionable wrongdoing or forgery by the Customs House Agent, its director, or employee, and the disclosures to Customs were consistent with correction and repacking. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:13:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50375 Cargo withdrawn for repacking before export clearance under Section 51 had not yet acquired the character of export goods under Section 2(18), so the conduct remained preparatory rather than an attempt to improperly export. On that footing, confiscation under Section 113(d) and Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable, and the confiscation order failed. Because confiscation was not established, the foundation for penalties under Section 114 also disappeared. The record did not prove actionable wrongdoing or forgery by the Customs House Agent, its director, or employee, and the disclosures to Customs were consistent with correction and repacking. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50375