https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43966 The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction of the first respondent under Section 135(i)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution failed to prove ownership of the vehicle used for smuggling, as it was not in the first respondent's name at the time of the incident. Additionally, the court found the evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act insufficient to support the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of substantial evidence against the first respondent. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43966 The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to set aside the conviction of the first respondent under Section 135(i)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The prosecution failed to prove ownership of the vehicle used for smuggling, as it was not in the first respondent's name at the time of the incident. Additionally, the court found the evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act insufficient to support the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of substantial evidence against the first respondent. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 06 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43966