https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197156 The appellate court upheld the accused's conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act for possessing foreign synthetic fabrics illegally. The confession was deemed voluntary and admissible, supported by witness testimony despite lack of independent witnesses during seizure. The court applied Section 123 of the Customs Act, rejecting the accused's argument on goods provenance. The accused's role as a driver did not absolve liability under Section 135(1)(b). The court modified the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment, considering time served and offense gravity, maintaining the fine and default detention terms. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:04:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197156 The appellate court upheld the accused's conviction under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act for possessing foreign synthetic fabrics illegally. The confession was deemed voluntary and admissible, supported by witness testimony despite lack of independent witnesses during seizure. The court applied Section 123 of the Customs Act, rejecting the accused's argument on goods provenance. The accused's role as a driver did not absolve liability under Section 135(1)(b). The court modified the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment, considering time served and offense gravity, maintaining the fine and default detention terms. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197156