https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41343 Customs statements were treated as proved and admissible once the appellants admitted their signatures, without needing examination of the lawyer who signed them. The Court noted that statements to customs officers were not excluded by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act because such officers are not police officers, and Section 24 applied only on proof of inducement, threat or promise, which was absent. It further stated that confiscation and penalty under the Sea Customs Act did not bar prosecution, as Section 186 was enabling rather than prohibitory. On the facts, smuggled gold and the surrounding conduct supported the ingredients of Section 167(81), and no reduction of sentence was warranted. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41343 Customs statements were treated as proved and admissible once the appellants admitted their signatures, without needing examination of the lawyer who signed them. The Court noted that statements to customs officers were not excluded by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act because such officers are not police officers, and Section 24 applied only on proof of inducement, threat or promise, which was absent. It further stated that confiscation and penalty under the Sea Customs Act did not bar prosecution, as Section 186 was enabling rather than prohibitory. On the facts, smuggled gold and the surrounding conduct supported the ingredients of Section 167(81), and no reduction of sentence was warranted. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41343