https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45760 Personal penalties under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act could not stand without proof that the petitioners were concerned in the smuggling offence itself; mere purchase or possession of smuggled gold, even with knowledge of its tainted character, was insufficient, so the penalties were set aside. Confiscation of the seized gold was sustained because the Collector had material showing suspicious dealings, admissions regarding part of the gold, and circumstances from which knowledge of smuggling could be inferred; on that material, the Court accepted the conclusion that the entire seized quantity was smuggled gold. The writ petitions succeeded only against the personal penalties, while confiscation remained in force. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:19:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45760 Personal penalties under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act could not stand without proof that the petitioners were concerned in the smuggling offence itself; mere purchase or possession of smuggled gold, even with knowledge of its tainted character, was insufficient, so the penalties were set aside. Confiscation of the seized gold was sustained because the Collector had material showing suspicious dealings, admissions regarding part of the gold, and circumstances from which knowledge of smuggling could be inferred; on that material, the Court accepted the conclusion that the entire seized quantity was smuggled gold. The writ petitions succeeded only against the personal penalties, while confiscation remained in force. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45760