Voluntary confession and presumption of smuggled goods supported confiscation where lawful import was not proved.

A confession may be treated as voluntary and admissible where custody, alleged coercion, retraction, injuries, or telegrams do not convincingly show duress. In the absence of valid import documents or other material proving lawful possession or licit import, the department may rely on the presumption that seized precious stones are smuggled goods for confiscation. An explanation that the stones belonged to a third party and were entrusted for sale was rejected on the facts, and the confiscation and penalty order was left substantially undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's statement could be relied upon as a voluntary confession; (ii) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the presumption that the seized precious stones were smuggled goods for the purpose of confiscation.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's statement could be relied upon as a voluntary confession.

Analysis: The statement was challenged as having been obtained while the appellant was in custody and under threat and coercion. The surrounding facts, including the alleged retraction, injuries, and telegrams, were relied upon to contend that the confession was involuntary. The Court found that these circumstances did not establish that the statement was extracted by duress and treated the confession as voluntary and admissible.

Conclusion: The statement could be relied upon; the challenge to its voluntariness failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the presumption that the seized precious stones were smuggled goods for the purpose of confiscation.

Analysis: The appellant produced no valid import document or other material to show lawful possession or licit import. The explanation that the stones belonged to a Sri Lankan national and were entrusted for sale was not accepted, especially in view of the contrary position taken by that person. On these facts, the Court held that the appellant had not displaced the basis for confiscation and that the departmental case was supported by the available material.

Conclusion: The evidence was sufficient to support the departmental presumption and the confiscation.

Final Conclusion: Both referred questions were answered against the appellant and in support of the Revenue, leaving the confiscation and penalty order substantially undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession will be acted upon where voluntariness is not disproved by convincing circumstances, and in the absence of lawful import documents or other rebuttal material, the department may sustain confiscation on the basis of the presumption arising from possession of the seized goods.

---