Customs Act presumptions and voluntary statements upheld; retraction, search objections, and confiscation challenge all failed.

A voluntary statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act remains admissible in confiscation proceedings despite later retraction when supported by surrounding circumstances and other material; the objection of duress failed. Search and seizure under section 105 were upheld because the officer was treated as duly authorised and the statute did not require recorded reasons in writing; any irregularity would not by itself vitiate the proceedings. On seizure of notified goods, the possessor must rebut the section 123 presumption by satisfactory evidence. As the explanations for the gold biscuits, foreign currency and Indian currency were not accepted, confiscation and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was involuntary or inadmissible because it was allegedly recorded under duress and later retracted; (ii) whether the search and seizure were invalid for want of authority or absence of reason to believe under section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) whether the confiscation of gold biscuits, foreign currency and Indian currency was justified in view of the burden and presumption under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was involuntary or inadmissible because it was allegedly recorded under duress and later retracted.

Analysis: The statement recorded under section 108 did not become inadmissible merely because the petitioner was in custody or because a later retraction was made. There was no contemporaneous material supporting the allegation of coercion or fear of physical pain. The retraction was not treated as reliable in preference to the original statement, and the statement was found to be corroborated by surrounding circumstances and other material on record. A customs officer is not a police officer for the purpose of section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and a statement recorded under section 108 can be relied upon in adjudicatory proceedings if it is voluntary and corroborated.

Conclusion: The statement under section 108 was held to be voluntary and admissible, and the objection based on retraction and duress failed against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the search and seizure were invalid for want of authority or absence of reason to believe under section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The officer who conducted the search was treated as duly authorised under the notification issued under the Act, and the statutory scheme permitted an empowered officer to search or authorise another officer to do so. The Court held that section 105 did not require recording of reasons in writing, and the existence of reason to believe was sufficiently borne out by the eventual recovery of contraband and unexplained goods from the petitioner's premises. Even assuming some irregularity in search, that would not by itself invalidate the seizure or the subsequent proceedings.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were upheld as valid, and the challenge based on lack of authority or absence of reason to believe was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the confiscation of gold biscuits, foreign currency and Indian currency was justified in view of the burden and presumption under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Once the notified goods were seized, the burden lay on the petitioner to explain lawful possession and to rebut the statutory presumption. The explanations offered for the gold biscuits, foreign currency and Indian currency were found unacceptable and unsupported by contemporaneous material. The Court accepted that the circumstances, including recovery from concealed places and the absence of a satisfactory explanation, justified the inference that the goods were smuggled and that the Indian currency represented sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The findings of the Commissioner and the Tribunal were treated as findings of fact based on evidence and not shown to suffer from perversity or error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld, and the petitioner failed to discharge the burden under section 123.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition raised no ground warranting interference in certiorari, and the confiscation and penalty orders were sustained on the basis of voluntary statement, valid search and seizure, and unrebutted statutory burden regarding smuggled goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 may be relied upon in confiscation proceedings despite later retraction if corroborated by surrounding circumstances, and once notified goods are seized the possessor must satisfactorily rebut the statutory presumption of smuggling under section 123.

---