https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40420 Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act was interpreted to extend beyond persons directly engaged in the physical import of prohibited goods, so liability was not confined to the actual importer. A Central Excise Officer was held not to be a police officer within Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act because powers of inquiry, arrest, and search under the Central Excise Act did not carry the essential incidents of a police officer, including filing a charge-sheet; accordingly, the appellant's statement was admissible and Section 24 did not apply. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40420 Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act was interpreted to extend beyond persons directly engaged in the physical import of prohibited goods, so liability was not confined to the actual importer. A Central Excise Officer was held not to be a police officer within Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act because powers of inquiry, arrest, and search under the Central Excise Act did not carry the essential incidents of a police officer, including filing a charge-sheet; accordingly, the appellant's statement was admissible and Section 24 did not apply. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 01 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40420