Attempt to export prohibited goods and reliance on retracted statements under customs law reinforced by corroborating evidence.

A coordinated chain of preparatory acts can amount to an attempt to export prohibited goods where the conduct moves beyond preparation into proximate overt acts directed at export, attracting confiscation under Section 113(d) and penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The article also explains that statements recorded under Section 108 remain substantive evidence if voluntary and corroborated, and that a belated retraction does not automatically erase their value. It further notes that electronic records may be relied on where their truth and relevance are admitted and the surrounding material is consistent, making Section 138C objections ineffective on the facts discussed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents' acts constituted an attempt to export prohibited goods so as to attract confiscation under Section 113(d) and penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the electronic material relied upon by the Revenue could be acted upon notwithstanding retraction and the objection based on Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents' acts constituted an attempt to export prohibited goods so as to attract confiscation under Section 113(d) and penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Export under the Customs Act requires taking goods out of India, and an attempt begins when preparatory acts culminate in proximate overt acts directed towards such export. The material showed procurement of Ketamine from Aurangabad, use of fictitious firms and false invoices, delivery through transporters, authorization of a nominee to collect the parcel, and arrangements for onward rebooking and foreign dispatch. The Court held that these acts went beyond mere preparation and amounted to a proximate attempt to export prohibited goods, bringing the case within Section 113(d). Once the goods were liable to confiscation, personal penalty under Section 114(i) followed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the respondents and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the electronic material relied upon by the Revenue could be acted upon notwithstanding retraction and the objection based on Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Statements under Section 108 are substantive evidence in customs proceedings if found voluntary and truthful, and a belated retraction does not by itself nullify their evidentiary value. The Court found corroboration from the statements of other persons, transport records, call details, seized documents, and email exchanges showing negotiations for Ketamine supply and export. The objection under Section 138C was rejected because the truth and relevance of the electronic material stood admitted and the records were consistent with the respondents' own statements. The Tribunal was held to have ignored material evidence and adopted an unsustainable view on facts and law.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the respondents and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside, the Commissioner's penalty order was restored, and the Revenue's appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs penalty proceedings, a retracted statement under Section 108 can be relied upon if it is voluntary and corroborated by surrounding evidence, and a coordinated chain of preparatory acts that is proximate to the physical movement of prohibited goods toward export constitutes an attempt to export within Section 113(d).

---