Smuggled gold confiscation upheld where customs evidence, statements, and surrounding circumstances proved illicit origin and knowledge.

Confiscation of gold bars as smuggled goods and the related penalty were upheld because the customs officer had the requisite belief to proceed under the Customs Act after police seizure and handover. Statements recorded under Section 108, together with documentary and surrounding circumstances, established that the gold was smuggled and knowingly purchased from an illicit source. The distinction between police seizure and customs seizure did not defeat the confiscation proceedings, and the retracted statements did not override the cumulative evidence. The Commissioner and Tribunal's findings were sustained on the totality of the material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of gold bars as smuggled goods and the imposition of penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were initially seized by the police and thereafter handed over to customs, where the proper officer formed the requisite belief and proceeded under the Customs Act. Statements recorded under Section 108, along with documentary and surrounding circumstances, established that the gold was smuggled and had been purchased with knowledge of its illicit origin. The challenge based on the distinction between a police seizure and a customs seizure did not assist the appellant in the confiscation proceedings, and the retracted statements did not displace the cumulative evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authorities. The findings of the Commissioner and the Tribunal were based on the totality of evidence and not on statements alone.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld; the challenge failed.

---