Corroborated inculpatory statements and seized goods can sustain duty demand, confiscation and penalties despite search irregularities.

Confiscation, duty demand and penalties were supported where seized biris, contemporaneous and inculpatory statements, and corroborating evidence showed manufacture and clearance without accounting or duty payment. A belated retraction, unsupported by material, was insufficient to displace the statements, and an irregularity in search or seizure did not by itself invalidate recovery. The objection to quantity computation was rejected because the account books disclosed the basis used by the appellant. Penalties were reduced on leniency, but the demand and liability were upheld. Appropriation of the security amount under a bond for provisional release was treated as administrative enforcement rather than a quasi-judicial adjudication, so no appeal lay on that aspect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation, duty demand and penalties could be sustained on the basis of the seized goods, statements recorded from the appellant and others, and the quantity worked out by the department; (ii) whether appropriation of the security amount under the bond executed for provisional release of the confiscated goods was appealable.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation, duty demand and penalties could be sustained on the basis of the seized goods, statements recorded from the appellant and others, and the quantity worked out by the department.

Analysis: The seized biris, the contemporaneous statements of the person intercepted with the goods, the appellant's own inculpatory statement, and the corroborative statements of other persons together established that the goods had been manufactured and cleared without accounting and without payment of duty. The plea of coercion was not supported by any material, and the belated retraction after about ten months weakened its credibility. An irregularity in the conduct of search or seizure did not, by itself, vitiate the recovery. The objection to computation of quantity was rejected because the account books showed the basis adopted by the appellant for working out the number of biris.

Conclusion: The demand and liability were upheld, but the penalties were reduced in exercise of leniency.

Issue (ii): Whether appropriation of the security amount under the bond executed for provisional release of the confiscated goods was appealable.

Analysis: The amount was appropriated in enforcement of the bond executed for provisional release of the confiscated goods. Such enforcement was treated as administrative in nature and not a quasi-judicial adjudication, and therefore no appeal lay to the Tribunal on that aspect.

Conclusion: The challenge to appropriation of the security amount was not maintainable in appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalties, while the remaining findings and the disputed appropriation aspect were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted inculpatory statement may be relied upon when it is corroborated by surrounding circumstances and other evidence, and an irregularity in search or seizure does not by itself invalidate the recovery.

---