https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211382 Conviction under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act was sustained because the seizure of gold articles was supported by customs testimony, seizure mahazar and corroborative circumstances, and the Section 108 statement was admissible since a customs officer is not a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The absence of authorization to transport the gold and any credible explanation for lawful acquisition in India justified the finding of smuggling. On sentence, the court considered age, family circumstances, limited education and detention already undergone, and reduced the substantive imprisonment to the period already served while enhancing the fine. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211382 Conviction under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act was sustained because the seizure of gold articles was supported by customs testimony, seizure mahazar and corroborative circumstances, and the Section 108 statement was admissible since a customs officer is not a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The absence of authorization to transport the gold and any credible explanation for lawful acquisition in India justified the finding of smuggling. On sentence, the court considered age, family circumstances, limited education and detention already undergone, and reduced the substantive imprisonment to the period already served while enhancing the fine. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211382