https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54185 A reassessment-based differential duty demand could not survive where the original bill of entry had already been assessed and had not been set aside or reviewed in the manner known to law, so the demand was set aside. Classification under heading 8517 as telephony equipment was rejected because the goods were hardware and software for a prepaid system, not telephony equipment, and the importer's declared classification was accepted. The department also failed to prove enhancement of value, excess import, or misdeclaration, so confiscation and penalties were not sustainable. The appeals succeeded and the adjudication order was set aside with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 May 2024 12:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54185 A reassessment-based differential duty demand could not survive where the original bill of entry had already been assessed and had not been set aside or reviewed in the manner known to law, so the demand was set aside. Classification under heading 8517 as telephony equipment was rejected because the goods were hardware and software for a prepaid system, not telephony equipment, and the importer's declared classification was accepted. The department also failed to prove enhancement of value, excess import, or misdeclaration, so confiscation and penalties were not sustainable. The appeals succeeded and the adjudication order was set aside with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54185