Customs adjudication competence and Section 108 statements can sustain penalty when corroborated and not timely retracted.

An Additional Commissioner of Customs is competent to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty under Chapter XIV where the statutory scheme, including Section 2(8), treats that officer within the relevant commissioner rank for that purpose. The article also states that a penalty can be sustained on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 108 when it is corroborated by surrounding material such as communications and other findings, and when there is no timely retraction or credible proof of coercion. On that reasoning, the penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld and the confiscation and penalty order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Commissioner of Customs was competent to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty in a case where the value of the confiscated goods exceeded the statutory threshold; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under the Customs Act could be sustained on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 108 and the surrounding material.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional Commissioner of Customs was competent to adjudicate confiscation and impose penalty in a case where the value of the confiscated goods exceeded the statutory threshold.

Analysis: Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962 allocates adjudicatory power depending on the value of the goods and the rank of the officer. The value of the seized gold was well above the relevant threshold. The Court also noted that Section 2(8) includes the Additional Commissioner of Customs within the expression Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs for the purposes of the Act, except Chapter XV. Since the adjudication was under Chapter XIV, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the competence of the Additional Commissioner failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under the Customs Act could be sustained on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 108 and the surrounding material.

Analysis: The Court found that the appellant's statement recorded under Section 108, together with the WhatsApp communication and the concurrent findings of the authorities below, established involvement in the smuggling activity. The statements were recorded before customs officers, who are not police officers, and the safeguards applicable to police confessions were held not to apply. The Court also noted that there was no timely retraction and no acceptable showing of threat or coercion at the relevant stage.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for admission, and the dismissal of the appeal left the penalty and confiscation order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Customs Act, an Additional Commissioner is competent to adjudicate under Chapter XIV by virtue of the statutory inclusion in Section 2(8), and a statement voluntarily recorded under Section 108 before customs authorities may sustain penalty when corroborated by surrounding material and not timely retracted.

---