Retracted statements and strict confiscation proof barred customs penalties where voluntariness and nexus to smuggled sales were unproved.

A retracted statement cannot be used against a respondent unless voluntariness is independently established, especially where surrounding circumstances such as serious illness cast doubt on free consent; on that basis, the statements were treated as unreliable. Confiscation also required strict proof of the statutory ingredients: the department had to prove illegal possession or sale of smuggled goods, and for Indian currency or foreign exchange, a clear nexus with sale proceeds of smuggled goods under the applicable customs provision. Documentary support for the explanation relating to cheques and drafts remained unrebutted, so the seized goods, currency and foreign exchange were held not liable to confiscation and no penalty was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statements recorded from the respondent were voluntary and reliable; (ii) whether the seized foreign-origin goods, Indian currency, foreign exchange and cheques/drafts were liable to confiscation and whether penalties were exigible.

Issue (i): Whether the statements recorded from the respondent were voluntary and reliable.

Analysis: The recorded statements were retracted promptly and the surrounding circumstances, including the respondent's serious cardiac condition, supported the plea that the statements were not made freely. The burden to establish voluntariness lay on the department once reliance was placed on the statements for proving guilt. The subsequent statement also suffered from the same infirmity and was not shown to be voluntary by independent evidence. The adjudicating authority's appreciation of the evidence on this aspect was found to be sound.

Conclusion: The statements were not voluntary or reliable and could not be acted upon against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized foreign-origin goods, Indian currency, foreign exchange and cheques/drafts were liable to confiscation and whether penalties were exigible.

Analysis: The department failed to establish illegal sale or possession of smuggled goods with the necessary corroboration. For Indian currency and foreign exchange, the ingredients of liability under Section 121 were not established, as no specific sale of smuggled goods and no nexus with sale proceeds were proved. The explanation that the cheques/drafts represented funds given by diplomats for remittance to suppliers was supported by documentary material and remained unrebutted. As to the goods, the department did not discharge the initial burden in respect of non-notified goods, while the notified goods were also found, on the facts, not liable to confiscation under the applicable customs provisions.

Conclusion: The seized goods, currency and foreign exchange were not liable to confiscation, and no penalty was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The department's challenge failed in full, and the order dropping confiscation and penalty proceedings was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement cannot be relied upon unless its voluntariness is independently established, and confiscation under the customs law requires strict proof of the statutory ingredients, including the nexus between the seized money and specific sales of smuggled goods.

---