2001 (1) TMI 98 - HC - Customs

Appellant's Confession Deemed Voluntary; Revenue Decision Upheld.

The High Court found the appellant's confession voluntary and admissible, rejecting claims of coercion. Insufficient evidence to disprove goods ... Voluntariness of confession - admissibility of statement given in custody - confession as evidence for confiscation - burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs ActVoluntariness of confession - admissibility of statement given in custody - The statement made by the appellant was voluntary and admissible. - HELD THAT: - The appellant contested the confession as obtained under duress while in custody, relying on telegrams, medical treatment records and examples of case law where custodial confessions were held involuntary. The Court examined the chronology of arrest and release, the appellant's delayed retraction (first raised in a reply to the show cause notice), the absence of contemporaneous communication to the respondents about alleged illtreatment, and the failure to produce corroborative material proving coercion. The Court also noted that the appellant did not explain inconsistencies such as failing to claim ownership yet asserting lawful possession. On these facts the Court found no basis to treat the confession as involuntary and held the statement to be voluntary and admissible. [Paras 12]Confession accepted as voluntary and admissible; appellant's objections rejected.Confession as evidence for confiscation - burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act - The evidence before the authority was sufficient to raise the presumption necessary for confiscation of the goods. - HELD THAT: - Although the seized precious stones were of a class permissible for import, the appellant produced no valid import receipts or ownership proof. His confession attributed ownership to a Sri Lankan national (Zubair), but Zubair disowned the goods in his reply to the show cause notice, and the appellant did not adequately explain that disavowal. The Tribunal had earlier modified confiscation to redemption on payment, and the Court, on review of the record, found that the department had material-absence of import documentation together with the appellant's own statement and the inconsistent replies-to justify the presumption of smuggling and consequent confiscation under the statutory scheme. The appellant failed to discharge the burden to show the goods were not smuggled. [Paras 11, 12]Evidence held sufficient to support presumption of smuggling; confiscation sustained.Final Conclusion: Both questions referred were answered in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant: the confessional statement was held voluntary and admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to justify the presumption supporting confiscation of the goods. Issues:1. Reliance on the statement of the appellant2. Sufficiency of evidence for raising a presumption of goods confiscationAnalysis:Issue 1: Reliance on the statement of the appellantThe appellant argued that the statement obtained from him while in custody was involuntary and inadmissible due to coercion and duress. Citing legal precedents like Nathu v. State of U.P., the appellant contended that prolonged custody preceding the confession raises doubts about its voluntariness. Additionally, the case of Roshan Beevi and Others v. Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu was referenced to support the admissibility of confessions made during customs inquiries under Sections 107 & 108 of the Customs Act. The appellant further relied on A. Abdullah v. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, emphasizing the significance of immediate retractions, injury reports, and lack of officer affidavits in determining the voluntariness of confessions. Conversely, the Revenue contended that the appellant's voluntary confession regarding smuggling precluded any challenge to its admissibility. The Revenue highlighted the lack of evidence supporting coercion or ill-treatment during custody and questioned the timing and credibility of the appellant's subsequent claims and notices. Ultimately, the court rejected the appellant's arguments, finding the confession voluntary and admissible.Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence for raising a presumption of goods confiscationThe appellant asserted that the seized stones were not smuggled goods and challenged the department to prove otherwise. It was argued that without notification of the goods as smuggled items, the department's actions lacked a legal basis under Section 123 of the Customs Act. However, despite the stones being permissible for import, the appellant failed to provide valid import receipts. The appellant's claim of acting on behalf of Zubair, the alleged owner, was refuted by Zubair's disavowal of ownership in response to the show cause notice. The appellant's dual stance on possession and ownership of the seized goods further weakened his argument. The court found the appellant's explanations unconvincing, especially in light of Zubair's denial and the lack of evidence disproving smuggling. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on both questions, upholding the confiscation and penalty imposed.In conclusion, the High Court held that the appellant's confession was voluntary and admissible, while also finding insufficient evidence to refute the presumption of goods confiscation. The court's decision favored the Revenue, upholding the order of confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant and Zubair.