Unretracted Section 108 statement can sustain Customs Act penalty for misdeclared antiquities when corroborated by surrounding evidence.

An unretracted statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can sustain penalty under Section 114 where it is admissible and supported by surrounding circumstances. Here, the person penalised admitted using another entity's IE code and signing documents to facilitate clearance of misdeclared antiquities, and that admission was consistent with the statements of other persons involved. On that basis, the evidentiary ingredients for penalty were satisfied, and the penalty was upheld as neither excessive nor arbitrary. The appeal accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable on the basis of the appellant's unretracted statement under Section 108 and the corroborating material in a case involving attempted export of misdeclared antiquities.

Analysis: The appellant's objection that penalty could not rest on the statements of co-accused was noted. However, the appellant himself had given a statement under Section 108 admitting that he agreed to use the IE code of M/s ICI India Pvt. Ltd. and signed the documents to facilitate clearance of the consignment. That statement was never retracted and was treated as admissible evidence. Its consistency with the statements of the other persons involved further strengthened its evidentiary value. In view of the nature of the goods and the misdeclaration involved, the ingredients for penalty under Section 114 stood satisfied, and the penalty was found neither excessive nor arbitrary.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An unretracted statement of the person penalised, if admissible and supported by surrounding circumstances, can independently sustain penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 even where reliance on co-accused statements is disputed.

---