https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43054 Evidence was insufficient to sustain prosecution for cheating or for making a false statement in customs drawback proceedings. To establish cheating, the record had to show dishonest inducement or obtaining of an undue advantage by deceit, but the material did not prove that the drawback declarations were knowingly false or made with dishonest intent. The drawback scheme also involved departmental verification and technical scrutiny, and the data submitted for fixation of drawback was not shown to be false in material particulars. The court therefore upheld the trial court's view that the prosecution evidence did not make out offences under Section 420 IPC or Section 132 of the Customs Act. en-us Thu, 09 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:19:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43054 Evidence was insufficient to sustain prosecution for cheating or for making a false statement in customs drawback proceedings. To establish cheating, the record had to show dishonest inducement or obtaining of an undue advantage by deceit, but the material did not prove that the drawback declarations were knowingly false or made with dishonest intent. The drawback scheme also involved departmental verification and technical scrutiny, and the data submitted for fixation of drawback was not shown to be false in material particulars. The court therefore upheld the trial court's view that the prosecution evidence did not make out offences under Section 420 IPC or Section 132 of the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43054