https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53403 Confiscation under Section 119 requires proof of physical concealment; where 49.201 M.Ts. were accepted as scrap and the record did not show concealment of other goods, confiscation and denial of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. were set aside for that quantity. The remaining goods were upheld as non-scrap on chemical examination and were liable to confiscation under Section 111 because the scrap declaration was incorrect. Rejection of the declared transaction value on EDI data failed because the relied-upon imports were not comparable in description, quantity or origin, so the invoice value was accepted. Redemption fine and penalty were reduced. en-us Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:20:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53403 Confiscation under Section 119 requires proof of physical concealment; where 49.201 M.Ts. were accepted as scrap and the record did not show concealment of other goods, confiscation and denial of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. were set aside for that quantity. The remaining goods were upheld as non-scrap on chemical examination and were liable to confiscation under Section 111 because the scrap declaration was incorrect. Rejection of the declared transaction value on EDI data failed because the relied-upon imports were not comparable in description, quantity or origin, so the invoice value was accepted. Redemption fine and penalty were reduced. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53403