Belated retraction of an admission does not erase penalty liability, though equitable facts may reduce the penalty.

A belated general retraction of an on-the-spot admission did not negate penalty liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, where the appellants had admitted carrying Bangladesh currency into India and had not claimed ownership. The article notes that the later allegation of pressure was ineffective, so the penalty remained justified. However, the facts showed the appellants were poor persons induced by a third party to carry the currency for a small consideration, which justified moderation of the penalty quantum from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 500 each.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 warranted reduction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The appellants had admitted in their on-the-spot statements that the Bangladesh currency was being carried from Bangladesh into India and had not claimed ownership of the currency. A general retraction made later in the reply to the show cause notice, on the basis that the statements were recorded under pressure, was held to be of no avail. The appellants were therefore liable to penalty, but the circumstances showed that they were poor persons and had been induced by a third person to carry the currency for a small consideration.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112 was upheld, but its quantum was reduced from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 500 on each appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalty, and were otherwise rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated general retraction of an admitted statement does not by itself negate liability to penalty, though the quantum of penalty may be moderated on equitable considerations arising from the facts proved.

---