Customs penalty upheld on retracted statement, seizure material, and corroborative evidence supporting unlawful possession of goods.

Penalty under the Customs Act was sustained where the adjudicating authority and Tribunal relied on a retracted Section 108 statement together with seizure material, contemporaneous panchnama, witness statements, and the absence of proof of lawful purchase or legitimate source. The retraction was found unsubstantiated, and the evidentiary value of the statement was assessed on the totality of circumstances rather than being nullified by retraction alone. On that basis, penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's penalty under the Customs Act could be sustained on the basis of a retracted statement under Section 108, supported by seizure material and other corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The appellant's statement was not accepted as involuntary. The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal relied not merely on the statement, but also on the seizure of the goods, the contemporaneous panchnama, the statements of other witnesses, and the absence of any material showing lawful purchase or legitimate source of the goods. The retraction was found to be unsubstantiated, and the Court held that the matter had to be assessed on the totality of circumstances rather than by treating a retraction as destroying all evidentiary value.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld and the challenge to the order failed.

---