https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41575 A customs prosecution cannot stand where the sanction order fails to show application of mind to the actual facts constituting the alleged offence and refers instead to an irrelevant provision. The prosecution must affirmatively prove valid sanction, and here the record did not establish that the sanctioning authority considered the material facts for the Section 135 offence. It also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the goods produced in court were the same items seized, or that the respondent had conscious possession or culpable linkage to them. The sanction and proof defects were fatal, so the prosecution could not be sustained. en-us Tue, 12 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41575 A customs prosecution cannot stand where the sanction order fails to show application of mind to the actual facts constituting the alleged offence and refers instead to an irrelevant provision. The prosecution must affirmatively prove valid sanction, and here the record did not establish that the sanctioning authority considered the material facts for the Section 135 offence. It also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the goods produced in court were the same items seized, or that the respondent had conscious possession or culpable linkage to them. The sanction and proof defects were fatal, so the prosecution could not be sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41575