https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41419 An appeal against acquittal was held incompetent because it was not filed by a duly authorised representative of the Union of India. On merits, the charge under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 failed because the prosecution did not satisfactorily prove the valuation or prohibited character of the coral beads, or the accused's guilty knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:34:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41419 An appeal against acquittal was held incompetent because it was not filed by a duly authorised representative of the Union of India. On merits, the charge under Section 135(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 failed because the prosecution did not satisfactorily prove the valuation or prohibited character of the coral beads, or the accused's guilty knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 11 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41419