Customs Act evidence: retracted co-accused statements remained usable with corroboration, and penalty was sustained.

Retraction of co-accused statements under the Customs Act did not, by itself, prevent reliance on those statements for penalty where corroborative material existed. The HC treated statements recorded under Section 108 as substantive evidence and held that they could be used with seizure and other supporting material unless coercion, force, or duress was satisfactorily proved. On the record, the alleged ill-treatment was not established, and the authorities had assessed the statements together with corroboration on a preponderance of probabilities. The penalty finding was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether retracted statements of co-accused recorded under the Customs Act could validly form the basis for penalty when supported by corroborative material.

Analysis: The reference arose from questions challenging reliance on confessional statements of co-accused and the absence of direct evidence against the appellant. The Court held that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are substantive material and may be relied upon where they are corroborated by other evidence. A retraction, by itself, does not displace the earlier statement unless coercion, force, or duress is satisfactorily shown. On the facts, the alleged ill-treatment and coercion were not established from the record, while the adjudicating authority had relied on detailed statements and corroborative seizure material. The Court also accepted that the issue turned on appreciation of evidence and that the authorities below had assessed the statements with corroboration and on the basis of probabilities.

Conclusion: The retracted statements of the co-accused could be relied upon along with corroborative evidence, and the finding imposing penalty on the appellant was upheld.

---