Section 108 statements and statutory presumption of smuggling can sustain customs confiscation when supported by corroborative facts.

Statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act remain admissible and can constitute substantive evidence in customs proceedings, even when retracted, if supported by surrounding circumstances and corroborative material; the article notes that objections of coercion or duress were not accepted on the facts described. In confiscation matters concerning gold, the Department must first produce sufficient material to raise the statutory presumption, after which the burden shifts to the person concerned under Section 123 to rebut smuggling. The text states that recovery of foreign-origin gold, an unsubstantiated claim of lawful acquisition, and a false explanation were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation and personal penalties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, including retracted confessions, could be relied upon as evidence in customs proceedings. (ii) Whether the Department had discharged the burden of proving smuggled character of the gold and the confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, including retracted confessions, could be relied upon as evidence in customs proceedings.

Analysis: Statements recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 are admissible and constitute substantive evidence in proceedings under the Customs Act. A retracted confession does not cease to have evidentiary value merely because it has been retracted, and it may be acted upon when supported by surrounding circumstances and corroborative material. The record showed recovery, identification of the appellants, and a chain of circumstances supporting the statements. The objection based on coercion and duress was not accepted on the facts.

Conclusion: The statements under Section 108, including the retracted confessions, were validly relied upon against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department had discharged the burden of proving smuggled character of the gold and the confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: In confiscation proceedings involving smuggled gold, the Department must first adduce sufficient material to raise a presumption, after which the burden shifts to the persons concerned to rebut it. Here, the circumstances showed recovery of foreign-origin gold, false explanation regarding lawful import, failure to substantiate the claim of lawful acquisition, and inability of the appellants to discharge the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department's evidence was held sufficient to establish illegal possession and smuggled nature of the goods, justifying confiscation and personal penalties.

Conclusion: The Department discharged the burden and the confiscation and penalties were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected because the evidence established illegal possession and smuggled character of the gold, and the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs confiscation proceedings, a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 remains substantive evidence even if retracted, and once the Department adduces sufficient circumstantial material to raise a presumption of smuggling, the burden shifts to the noticee under Section 123 to rebut it.

---