Burden of proof in customs cases fails where police recovery is later handed to customs and retracted statements lack corroboration.

When gold is first recovered by the police and later handed over to customs, section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted, so the burden does not shift to the persons proceeded against. The Department must therefore prove alleged smuggling or liability through independent and reliable evidence. A police statement that is later retracted before customs, including in jail custody, cannot by itself sustain penalty, especially where there is no meaningful inquiry or corroboration linking the appellants to the offence. A confession to police was also treated as legally infirm under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The penalties were set aside for want of reliable evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalties imposed under section 112(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable when the gold was first recovered by the police and later handed over to the customs authorities, and when the appellants had retracted their earlier police statements before the customs authorities.

Analysis: The gold biscuit was recovered by the police and not seized in the first instance by a proper customs officer, so the burden under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not shift to the appellants. The Department was therefore required to establish the appellants' involvement by independent and reliable evidence. The earlier statement recorded by the police was retracted before the customs authorities, including while in jail custody, and the customs record did not disclose any meaningful inquiry into the delay in handing over the goods, the absence of statements of other bus passengers, or any corroborative evidence linking the appellants to the alleged offence. Mere reliance on the police statement, circumstantial links, and mobile phone connection was held insufficient. A confession to the police was also treated as legally infirm in view of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The penalties could not be sustained, and the appellants succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The adjudicatory findings imposing penalties were set aside for want of reliable evidence and for failure to discharge the burden of proof.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are first recovered by the police and later handed over to customs, section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted and the Department must independently prove the alleged smuggling or liability; a retracted police statement, without corroboration, is insufficient to sustain penalty.

---