Customs Act evidence and limitation rules upheld: retracted statement accepted, but appeal failed on delay and pre-deposit non-compliance.

A Section 108 Customs Act statement recorded by a gazetted officer, signed by the appellant and supported by a contemporaneous panchanama and certificate, was treated as voluntary and admissible despite later retraction; the unsupported retraction was given no weight. The appeal was also found time-barred because it was filed beyond the applicable limitation period under Section 129-A(3), with no condonation request under Section 129-A(5). In addition, mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129-E was not complied with, and a belated oral stay request could not cure that defect. The appeal was therefore not entertainable and stood rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could be treated as voluntary, truthful, and admissible evidence despite subsequent retraction; (ii) whether the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 129-A(3) of the Customs Act; and (iii) whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act.

Issue (i): whether the appellant's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could be treated as voluntary, truthful, and admissible evidence despite subsequent retraction.

Analysis: The statement was recorded by a gazetted Customs officer under statutory summons, signed by the appellant, and accompanied by a certificate that it was correctly recorded and made without force or coercion. The contemporaneous panchanama also supported the statement by recording the appellant's identification of the bag from which the contraband was recovered. The later retraction was unsupported by evidence and was not strengthened by any attempt to test the recording officers or panch witnesses. In these circumstances, the statement was accepted as valid evidence and the retraction was held to be without weight.

Conclusion: The statement under Section 108 was held to be voluntary, truthful, and admissible, and the appellant's challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 129-A(3) of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The impugned order had been communicated on 27-3-1982, while the appeal reached the Tribunal on 30-11-1982, beyond the extended period applicable under the relevant notifications and removal-of-difficulties order. No application for condonation of delay was made under Section 129-A(5) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal therefore treated the appeal as beyond time and not entertainable.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be time-barred and liable to rejection.

Issue (iii): whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129-E of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The requirement of deposit under Section 129-E was treated as mandatory. The request for stay was made only orally at the hearing and no written application had been filed earlier. The Tribunal held that such a belated oral request could not cure non-compliance with the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be liable to dismissal for non-compliance with Section 129-E.

Final Conclusion: The appellant failed on merits and also on the preliminary objections of limitation and statutory compliance, so the appeal could not be entertained and stood rejected.

---