https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76836 The court altered the petitioner's conviction from Section 135(1)(i) to Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act due to unreliable evidence on the purity and value of seized gold. The court found discrepancies in the assessment of gold purity and value, highlighting limitations of the touchstone method. As a result, the imprisonment sentence was set aside, and the fine imposed on the petitioner was modified and enhanced based on the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the gold's purity and value. en-us Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76836 The court altered the petitioner's conviction from Section 135(1)(i) to Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act due to unreliable evidence on the purity and value of seized gold. The court found discrepancies in the assessment of gold purity and value, highlighting limitations of the touchstone method. As a result, the imprisonment sentence was set aside, and the fine imposed on the petitioner was modified and enhanced based on the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the gold's purity and value. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 25 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76836