Retracted customs confession remains usable when voluntary and independently corroborated by witness statements and documents.

In customs adjudication, a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible because a customs officer is not a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but the statement must be voluntary and supported by surrounding circumstances. A mere retraction does not, by itself, destroy its evidentiary value; the person alleging coercion must establish it, and the authority must look for independent corroboration. Where witness statements, recovery records and delivery documents corroborate the confession, the penalty may be sustained on the preponderance of probabilities.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for dealing with smuggled goods was sustainable on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the corroborative material; and whether the retraction of the statement displaced the evidentiary value of the confession.

Analysis: The challenge turned on the effect of a retracted confession in customs adjudication. The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible because a customs officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the statement must still be voluntary and must be tested against the surrounding circumstances. A mere retraction does not make the statement unusable; the maker alleging coercion must establish it, and the adjudicating authority must examine whether there is independent corroboration. On the facts, the statement implicating the appellant was supported by the statements of other witnesses and documentary material, including recovery records and delivery documents, and the authorities also applied the correct standard applicable to adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld. The retraction did not nullify the evidence, and the concurrent findings based on corroborated material were not shown to be erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the finding of liability for customs penalty rested on admissible and corroborated evidence, not on a retracted confession alone.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, a retracted confession under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 may be relied upon only when it is shown to be voluntary and is supported by independent corroborative evidence; where such corroboration exists, the penalty can be sustained on a preponderance of probabilities.

---