Foreign-marked gold and customs statements: admissibility, burden shifting, and Gold Control liability were affirmed.

A statement made to a Customs and Central Excise officer is admissible unless the evidence shows it was procured by inducement, threat or promise sufficient to affect voluntariness; it is not treated as a confession to a police officer. Possession of foreign-marked gold seized under a reasonable belief of smuggled character shifts the burden to the possessor to prove lawful possession, and failure to do so supports liability under the customs law. Independent proof of possession of gold without the required declaration or permit also establishes contravention under the Gold Control rules, even where the gold is smuggled.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent's statement to the Central Excise officer was inadmissible as having been obtained by inducement, threat or promise; (ii) whether the respondent's possession of foreign-marked gold attracted the statutory burden and established liability under the customs law; (iii) whether the respondent was also guilty of possessing gold in contravention of the Gold Control rules.

Issue (i): whether the respondent's statement to the Central Excise officer was inadmissible as having been obtained by inducement, threat or promise.

Analysis: The statement recorded by a Customs and Central Excise officer was not hit by the rule excluding confessions to police officers. On the evidence, there was no reliable material showing that the statement was procured by threat, inducement or promise so as to create a reasonable belief that the respondent would gain an advantage or avoid temporal evil by making it. The trial court's approach equating such a statement with a confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was erroneous.

Conclusion: The statement was admissible and not vitiated under the law relating to confessions.

Issue (ii): whether the respondent's possession of foreign-marked gold attracted the statutory burden and established liability under the customs law.

Analysis: The respondent was found with 43 pieces of gold bearing foreign markings, and the gold was seized under a reasonable belief that it was smuggled goods. Once such seizure was established, the burden shifted to the respondent to prove that the goods were not smuggled. The respondent failed to discharge that burden, and the surrounding circumstances, including the locked suitcase and the false or shifting explanation, supported conscious possession and knowledge.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 was proved against the respondent.

Issue (iii): whether the respondent was also guilty of possessing gold in contravention of the Gold Control rules.

Analysis: The evidence showed possession of gold without the requisite declaration or permit under the Gold Control regime. The definition of gold under the relevant rules did not exclude smuggled gold, and contravention of the possession restriction was established independently of the customs offence.

Conclusion: The charge under Rule 126-P(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 was proved against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the respondent was convicted for both the customs offence and the Gold Control offence, with concurrent sentences imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized foreign-marked gold is found in a person's possession under a reasonable belief of smuggled character, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful possession, and a statement to a Customs officer is admissible unless tainted by inducement, threat or promise sufficient to affect voluntariness.

---