https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53015 The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to discrepancies between the imported marble slabs and the description in the advance license. However, penalties imposed under Section 112 were set aside based on the principle that penalties cannot be imposed when goods do not match the license description, as per the case law of Universal Steel Agencies v. CC, Kandla. The Tribunal applied the principle of estoppel, emphasizing that the importer's failure to contest the examination report during inspection precluded challenging it post-clearance, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal. en-us Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:25:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53015 The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to discrepancies between the imported marble slabs and the description in the advance license. However, penalties imposed under Section 112 were set aside based on the principle that penalties cannot be imposed when goods do not match the license description, as per the case law of Universal Steel Agencies v. CC, Kandla. The Tribunal applied the principle of estoppel, emphasizing that the importer's failure to contest the examination report during inspection precluded challenging it post-clearance, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53015