Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were liable to penalty under item 8 of the Schedule to Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act on the footing that they imported gold or were concerned in its illegal importation.
Analysis: Liability under item 8 required proof that the petitioners actually imported the gold or were concerned in the importation itself, such as by arranging, abetting, or otherwise participating in the act of import. Mere possession, sale, purchase, or knowledge that the gold was smuggled did not by itself establish participation in the completed offence of importation. The materials relied upon by the department, including statements of third parties, separate accounts, trunk telephone contacts, inability to explain possession, and adverse inferences from the petitioners' statements, did not amount to legal evidence showing that the petitioners imported the gold or were concerned in its import. The court also held that no presumption could be drawn on the basis of general smuggling conditions to supply the missing proof of involvement in the specific importation.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not shown to be concerned in the illegal importation of the gold, and the penalties under item 8 could not be sustained.