https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53118 Goods covered by OGL were held not liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, so the connected redemption fine could not survive. Penalty under Section 112(b) was also set aside because the purchaser/clearing intermediary lacked proof of knowledge, or reason to believe, that the goods were liable to confiscation; merely arranging clearance after checking export obligations was insufficient on these facts. Duty liability under the DEEC import arrangement was held recoverable from the actual importers, not from the present appellants, and the demand fastened on them was not maintained. en-us Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:20:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53118 Goods covered by OGL were held not liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, so the connected redemption fine could not survive. Penalty under Section 112(b) was also set aside because the purchaser/clearing intermediary lacked proof of knowledge, or reason to believe, that the goods were liable to confiscation; merely arranging clearance after checking export obligations was insufficient on these facts. Duty liability under the DEEC import arrangement was held recoverable from the actual importers, not from the present appellants, and the demand fastened on them was not maintained. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53118