https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186404 Liability to penalty under item 8 of the Schedule to Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act required proof that the petitioners actually imported the gold or were concerned in that importation by arranging, abetting, or otherwise participating in it. Mere possession, sale, purchase, knowledge of smuggled origin, or adverse inferences from unexplained possession did not establish participation in the completed offence of import. The Madras HC held that the departmental materials, including third-party statements, account entries, telephone contacts, and general smuggling conditions, did not amount to legal evidence of involvement in the specific importation. The penalties could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:02:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186404 Liability to penalty under item 8 of the Schedule to Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act required proof that the petitioners actually imported the gold or were concerned in that importation by arranging, abetting, or otherwise participating in it. Mere possession, sale, purchase, knowledge of smuggled origin, or adverse inferences from unexplained possession did not establish participation in the completed offence of import. The Madras HC held that the departmental materials, including third-party statements, account entries, telephone contacts, and general smuggling conditions, did not amount to legal evidence of involvement in the specific importation. The penalties could not be sustained. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 22 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186404