Customs Act burden and confession rules: section 123, section 108 statements, and charging under section 135(1)(ii) explained

Section 123 of the Customs Act applies only where seized goods are reasonably believed to be smuggled, so its burden-shifting effect depends on that factual foundation. A statement recorded under section 108 may be relied on in customs proceedings where it is treated as part of the statutory inquiry and is not retracted, and surrounding material may independently support a smuggling case. Section 135(1)(i) operates only when section 123 is attracted and the statutory value threshold is met; where that condition is absent, liability may still fall under section 135(1)(ii) if its ingredients are established. Section 135(3) is not available unless its special-reasons requirement is engaged.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the burden under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied on the facts of the case and whether the accused's statement recorded under section 108 of that Act could be used against him; (ii) whether conviction and sentence could properly be sustained under section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, or were liable to be brought under section 135(1)(ii).

Issue (i): whether the burden under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied on the facts of the case and whether the accused's statement recorded under section 108 of that Act could be used against him.

Analysis: Section 123 applies only where goods are seized under the Act in reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. On the record, the appellate court had not applied section 123, and the revisional court declined to disturb that finding at the instance of the accused. As to section 108, the Court treated the customs inquiry as a judicial proceeding within the statutory framework and held that a statement recorded thereunder could be relied upon, particularly where no retraction was made. The Court also noted that, independent of that statement, the surrounding material supported smuggling.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-application of section 123 did not succeed, and the use of the section 108 statement was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether conviction and sentence could properly be sustained under section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, or were liable to be brought under section 135(1)(ii).

Analysis: Clause (i) of section 135(1) applies only where the case falls within section 123 and the market price exceeds the prescribed threshold. Since section 123 was not applied, the ingredients for clause (i) were not satisfied. However, the charges had also encompassed clause (ii), and the facts fit that clause. The Court therefore modified the conviction and sentence from clause (i) to clause (ii), while maintaining the substantive sentence. It further held that section 135(3) did not assist the accused because its special-reasons limitation was not attracted to clause (ii).

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were altered to section 135(1)(ii), and the request for reduction of sentence under section 135(3) was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revision was disposed of with modification of the conviction and sentence to the lesser statutory clause, while leaving the substantive custodial and monetary punishment intact.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences under the Customs Act, 1962, section 135(1)(i) applies only where section 123 is attracted; if that condition is absent, the case may nonetheless be sustained under section 135(1)(ii) where its ingredients are made out.

---