Section 108 statements and clubbed gold imports can trigger non-bailable treatment under the Customs Act

Statements recorded by customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act are treated as admissible evidence and may be relied on at the bail stage, especially where they are not retracted. The note also explains that earlier undisclosed gold imports may be clubbed with the present consignment for assessing market value and duty evasion under Sections 135 and 104(6), because the smuggling activity is treated as continuing until duty is paid. On that footing, the combined value can trigger the non-bailable regime and support refusal of bail where the conduct appears organised and repeated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and could be relied upon at the bail stage; (ii) whether earlier imports of gold without declaration and payment of customs duty could be clubbed with the present consignment for determining the market value and duty evasion under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequent applicability of Section 104(6); (iii) whether the petitioners were entitled to bail.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and could be relied upon at the bail stage.

Analysis: Statements recorded by customs officers under Section 108 are material pieces of evidence and are admissible in evidence. A person summoned under that provision is bound to state the truth, and such statements are not hit by the rules applicable to police statements. The petitioners had not retracted their statements, nor was there any satisfactory basis to discard them at the stage of bail.

Conclusion: The statements under Section 108 were held to be admissible and could be relied upon for deciding the bail applications.

Issue (ii): Whether earlier imports of gold without declaration and payment of customs duty could be clubbed with the present consignment for determining the market value and duty evasion under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequent applicability of Section 104(6).

Analysis: The expression "any goods" in Section 135 was treated as wide enough to include goods earlier imported and not yet subjected to duty, and the offence was held to be a continuous one until customs duty is paid. On the facts, the earlier and present consignments, taken together, showed a common course of conduct and joint smuggling activity. The combined market value and duty evasion were held to exceed the statutory thresholds, bringing the case within the non-bailable category under Section 104(6).

Conclusion: Clubbing of the earlier consignments with the present seizure was upheld, and the offence was held to be non-bailable.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail.

Analysis: In view of the gravity of the offence, the repeated and organised nature of the smuggling activity, the admissible statements, and the statutory bar arising from Section 104(6), bail was not justified. The Court also treated the likelihood of repetition and absconding as relevant adverse factors.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held not entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The applications for bail were dismissed after holding that the alleged conduct attracted the non-bailable regime under the Customs Act, 1962 and that the petitioners had failed to make out a case for release on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Sections 104(6) and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, earlier undisclosed imports forming part of the same smuggling activity may be reckoned together with the present consignment, and statements recorded under Section 108 are admissible material at the bail stage.

---