https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792044 For conviction under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a false declaration, fraudulent evasion, or a legally cognisable attempt to evade duty or prohibition. Where gold was recovered but the accused was intercepted after immigration, before reaching the customs clearance stage or making any declaration at the Red or Green Channel, those statutory ingredients were not established. Concealment in a waist belt raised suspicion about intention, but suspicion could not replace proof. The Delhi HC therefore found the acquittal justified and declined interference. en-us Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 May 2026 07:06:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792044 For conviction under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a false declaration, fraudulent evasion, or a legally cognisable attempt to evade duty or prohibition. Where gold was recovered but the accused was intercepted after immigration, before reaching the customs clearance stage or making any declaration at the Red or Green Channel, those statutory ingredients were not established. Concealment in a waist belt raised suspicion about intention, but suspicion could not replace proof. The Delhi HC therefore found the acquittal justified and declined interference. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792044