Customs adjudication may rely on confessional and accomplice evidence, with earlier voluntary statements preferred over later contradictions.

Customs adjudication under Section 130(1) was treated as a fact-intensive, quasi-judicial process rather than one importing full Criminal Procedure Code or Evidence Act safeguards. Confessional and accomplice evidence could be considered with corroborative material, and a tribunal could prefer an earlier statement if found true and voluntary over later contradictory versions. Findings on the appellants' connection with the lorries and contraband, and the inapplicability of Section 123 where the goods were not recovered from actual possession, were characterised as factual appreciation and not referable questions of law absent perversity or lack of record support.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether proceedings under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 were quasi-criminal so as to attract the principles of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in relying upon confessional statements and the earliest statements of the lorry drivers in preference to later contradictory versions; (iii) whether the factual findings regarding the appellants' connection with the lorries and the contraband, and the inapplicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, gave rise to any referable question of law.

Issue (i): whether proceedings under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 were quasi-criminal so as to attract the principles of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act.

Analysis: The reference applications proceeded on the premise that customs adjudication was quasi-criminal and that the Tribunal had ignored criminal-law safeguards. The order found that the Tribunal had examined the material on record, applied the relevant principles of natural justice where necessary, and recorded findings of guilt on facts and materials. No basis was shown to hold that the procedural principles relied on by the applicants were disregarded in the manner suggested.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and no referable question arose in favour of the applicants.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal was justified in relying upon confessional statements and the earliest statements of the lorry drivers in preference to later contradictory versions.

Analysis: The order held that a co-accused's confession could be considered as one piece of evidence in departmental proceedings, and that accomplice evidence, though weak, was admissible. It further held that quasi-judicial authorities are entitled to scan and weigh the evidence and prefer an earlier version if it is found to be true and voluntary. The Tribunal's reliance on the earliest statements, together with corroborative material, was treated as a permissible appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The challenge to the evidentiary appreciation was rejected and no question of law was found to arise.

Issue (iii): whether the factual findings regarding the appellants' connection with the lorries and the contraband, and the inapplicability of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, gave rise to any referable question of law.

Analysis: The order treated the alleged factual discrepancies about relationship, residence, and possession as minor and inconsequential to the core findings. It also recorded that Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not applicable because the goods were not recovered from the appellants' actual possession. The Tribunal's conclusion rested on the earliest statements, corroborative materials, and the appellants' connection with the transport of the contraband, matters characterised as factual and not perverse.

Conclusion: The findings were held to be factual and no question of law was made out.

Final Conclusion: The reference applications failed on all substantial grounds, as the Tribunal's conclusions on evidence and factual appreciation were upheld and nothing warranting reference to the High Court was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, confessional and accomplice evidence may be relied upon as part of the overall material, and the preference for an earlier truthful and voluntary statement over a later contradictory one is a matter of factual appreciation unless the finding is shown to be perverse or unsupported by record.

---