https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242052 The court denied the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a smuggling case involving diverted duty-free gold. It held that the amendments to the Customs Act were applicable, rejecting the argument for separate treatment of transactions. The court affirmed the evasion of customs duty through diverting goods from a Special Economic Zone, upholding the legality of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's actions. Due to suspicions of complicity and multiple bail applications, the court concluded that pre-arrest bail was not warranted under Section 438, dismissing the petitioner's plea. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:02:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242052 The court denied the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a smuggling case involving diverted duty-free gold. It held that the amendments to the Customs Act were applicable, rejecting the argument for separate treatment of transactions. The court affirmed the evasion of customs duty through diverting goods from a Special Economic Zone, upholding the legality of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's actions. Due to suspicions of complicity and multiple bail applications, the court concluded that pre-arrest bail was not warranted under Section 438, dismissing the petitioner's plea. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242052