Evidentiary value of confessional statements in customs cases fails without proper empowerment and corroboration.

Confiscation of sugar and a truck, together with related penalties, was found unsustainable where the alleged attempted smuggling rested only on the driver's statement. The statement lost evidentiary value because it was recorded in the presence of police officers after police seizure, and medical evidence supported the inference of duress. It was also recorded under Section 107 of the Customs Act without material showing that the recording officer had been duly empowered by the Commissioner. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence that the sugar was intended for smuggling into Nepal, the revenue challenge failed and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the sugar and truck, and the penalties imposed, could be sustained when the allegation of attempted smuggling rested only on the driver's statement recorded in the presence of police officers, without proof of due empowerment under the customs law and without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The Department's case was founded solely on the driver's statement. The record showed that the truck had first been seized by police and that the statement had been recorded in the presence of police officers. On that basis, the statement was held to have lost evidentiary value under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The statement had also been recorded under Section 107 of the Customs Act, 1962, but there was no material to show that the recording officer had been empowered by the Commissioner by a general or special order, as required for admissibility. The medical evidence showing injuries on the driver supported the inference that the statement was obtained under duress. No independent corroborative material established that the sugar was intended to be smuggled into Nepal.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were not sustainable. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

---