https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288016 Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act was interpreted broadly to cover not only persons involved in the original importation of smuggled goods, but also later dealers who knowingly acquire or deal with them while the prohibition continues or duty remains unpaid. Liability depends on knowledge and intent to evade the prohibition or defraud the Government of duty, not on participation in the actual smuggling. A prior-arranged attempt to purchase known smuggled gold, including carrying money and meeting the seller secretly before police intervention, was held to be an overt act amounting to dealing with prohibited goods. The convictions were upheld and the acquittals set aside. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2020 11:00:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288016 Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act was interpreted broadly to cover not only persons involved in the original importation of smuggled goods, but also later dealers who knowingly acquire or deal with them while the prohibition continues or duty remains unpaid. Liability depends on knowledge and intent to evade the prohibition or defraud the Government of duty, not on participation in the actual smuggling. A prior-arranged attempt to purchase known smuggled gold, including carrying money and meeting the seller secretly before police intervention, was held to be an overt act amounting to dealing with prohibited goods. The convictions were upheld and the acquittals set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288016