https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356578 An acquittal under the Customs Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the IPC was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove uninterrupted custody of the seized goods. The evidence left an unexplained gap between removal from Indira Dock and alleged deposit in the Customs godown, and the record also contained inconsistencies about inspection dates and the place of examination. In the absence of proof of custody and movement, the prosecution case remained unsubstantiated, and the trial court's view was held to be reasonable and plausible. No interference with the acquittal was warranted. en-us Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 07:03:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356578 An acquittal under the Customs Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the IPC was upheld because the prosecution failed to prove uninterrupted custody of the seized goods. The evidence left an unexplained gap between removal from Indira Dock and alleged deposit in the Customs godown, and the record also contained inconsistencies about inspection dates and the place of examination. In the absence of proof of custody and movement, the prosecution case remained unsubstantiated, and the trial court's view was held to be reasonable and plausible. No interference with the acquittal was warranted. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 06 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356578