https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272149 Penal liability under the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act depends on strict proof of the statutory ingredients. The Supreme Court held that, on the facts found, the ingredients of Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were not satisfied despite the valuation of the goods brought from Sri Lanka, and the conviction could not be sustained. It also held that Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 did not apply because the case did not involve gold, silver, precious stones or foreign currency brought from abroad. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the reversal of acquittal was set aside. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 May 2016 11:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272149 Penal liability under the Customs Act and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act depends on strict proof of the statutory ingredients. The Supreme Court held that, on the facts found, the ingredients of Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 were not satisfied despite the valuation of the goods brought from Sri Lanka, and the conviction could not be sustained. It also held that Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 did not apply because the case did not involve gold, silver, precious stones or foreign currency brought from abroad. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the reversal of acquittal was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272149