Corroboration is essential before customs penalty can rest on co-noticee statements and unverified premises allegations

Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, read with section 4 of the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, could not rest solely on statements of co-noticees without independent corroboration. The appellant's own statement contained no incriminating admission, and the alleged tenancy-based inference was unreliable because the claimed owner was not the actual owner of the premises. As no independent positive evidence linked the appellant to the seized antiques or supported the smuggling , the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 4 of the Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972 could be sustained solely on the basis of statements of co-noticees without independent corroborative evidence against the appellant.

Analysis: The appellant's own statement did not contain any incriminating admission. The penalty was founded primarily on statements of co-accused/co-noticees and on an unverified assumption regarding tenancy of the premises. The finding based on the alleged rental arrangement was not reliable because the person said to be the owner was not in fact the owner of the premises. No independent positive evidence was produced to corroborate the allegations of smuggling or to connect the appellant with the seized antiques.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---