Delhi HC upholds customs penalty restoration order based on Section 108 statements and corroborating evidence

The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a customs penalty restoration order. The petitioner had given incriminating statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act admitting to recovery of memory cards from his possession and recognizing an accomplice. The court held that Section 108 statements constitute substantive evidence, were consistent, and corroborated by panchnamas and witness testimony. The HC ruled it cannot substitute its own conclusions for administrative decisions absent patent illegality or procedural violations, finding no merit in the challenge to the evidence-based revision order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Order No. 35/2015-CUS dated 22.12.2015.
2. Evidence against the petitioner.
3. Corroboration of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
4. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order No. 35/2015-CUS dated 22.12.2015:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, which restored the Order-in-Original dated 09.11.2012, imposing a penalty on the petitioner. The order was based on the revision application preferred by the Revenue against the order in appeal dated 31.7.2013, which had set aside the penalty.

2. Evidence against the petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the entire case lacked evidence, highlighting that no officer who tracked his movement was examined, no surveillance footage was presented, and no witnesses corroborated the petitioner's involvement. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the absence of corroborative evidence, asserting that the petitioner's statement was involuntary.

3. Corroboration of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act:
The respondents argued that there was sufficient corroborative evidence, including voluntary statements made by the petitioner and other involved parties under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which were not retracted until after the arrest. The statements were supported by the Panchnamas prepared on the spot, detailing the recovery of memory cards and other items. The Joint Secretary noted that these statements were consistent and supported by the evidence on record.

4. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act:
The Government observed that the petitioner, an immigration officer, colluded with others to facilitate the smuggling of memory cards, thus contravening several provisions of the Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy. The Joint Secretary relied on various judgments emphasizing the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which can be used as substantive evidence. The penalty under Section 112 was deemed justified based on the evidence and the petitioner's actions.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under writ jurisdiction:
The High Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under writ is administrative and supervisory, not original or appealable. The court cannot substitute its conclusions for those of the lower authorities unless there is a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of law and justice. The court found no patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The court upheld the findings of the Joint Secretary, affirming the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, and concluded that the petitioner's guilt in colluding and abetting the smuggling of goods was clearly established.

---