https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50919 Where goods were correctly described in the Bill of Entry but classified under an incorrect tariff heading, the Tribunal treated the absence of any finding of misdescription as fatal to penal consequences. It held that a wrong classification alone could not sustain confiscation, redemption fine or penalty, because the foundation for such action was lacking. The differential duty demand was, however, upheld, reflecting that the classification error did not defeat the duty liability in the controversy before the Tribunal. The decision therefore distinguishes duty assessment from penal liability, limiting confiscatory and punitive measures to cases where misdescription or other adverse facts are established. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:38:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50919 Where goods were correctly described in the Bill of Entry but classified under an incorrect tariff heading, the Tribunal treated the absence of any finding of misdescription as fatal to penal consequences. It held that a wrong classification alone could not sustain confiscation, redemption fine or penalty, because the foundation for such action was lacking. The differential duty demand was, however, upheld, reflecting that the classification error did not defeat the duty liability in the controversy before the Tribunal. The decision therefore distinguishes duty assessment from penal liability, limiting confiscatory and punitive measures to cases where misdescription or other adverse facts are established. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50919