https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201620 The revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which was confirmed by the Sessions court. The court upheld the conviction based on evidence of possession of valuable gold not declared during customs clearance. Despite the petitioner's financial condition, the fine of Rs. 40,000 was deemed appropriate given the substantial value of the seized gold exceeding Rs. 4,00,000. The judgment found the conviction legally sound and dismissed the revision, directing execution of the sentence by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:08:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201620 The revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which was confirmed by the Sessions court. The court upheld the conviction based on evidence of possession of valuable gold not declared during customs clearance. Despite the petitioner's financial condition, the fine of Rs. 40,000 was deemed appropriate given the substantial value of the seized gold exceeding Rs. 4,00,000. The judgment found the conviction legally sound and dismissed the revision, directing execution of the sentence by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201620