Customs statements and factual objections did not raise a referable question of law under evidence and presumption rules.

Statements recorded by customs authorities during customs enquiry are not barred by Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act merely because an FIR exists, because a customs officer is not treated as a police officer for that purpose. The document also notes that objections about seizure by police, the availability of statutory presumptions under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act, conscious possession, benefit of doubt, and alleged variance from the show cause notice were treated as fact-based or vague contentions. On that basis, the reference applications failed because no referable question of law was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objections regarding statements recorded by customs officers, in the light of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, raised any referable question of law. (ii) Whether the contention that the seizure was by police and that the presumptions under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 99 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were unavailable raised any question of law. (iii) Whether the remaining grounds relating to conscious possession, benefit of doubt, the Collector's findings, and alleged variance from the show cause notice involved any question of law fit for reference.

Issue (i): Whether the objections regarding statements recorded by customs officers, in the light of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, raised any referable question of law.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that a person questioned by customs authorities is not, merely for that reason, an accused of an offence so as to attract testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3). A customs officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and statements made during customs enquiry under the Customs Act are not barred on that ground. The prior judicial position treating such statements as admissible was taken as settling the legal issue.

Conclusion: The objection did not disclose any referable question of law and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the contention that the seizure was by police and that the presumptions under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 99 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 were unavailable raised any question of law.

Analysis: The challenge was treated as one turning on the facts of seizure, the nature of the goods, and the admissions and omissions in the proceedings below. On the record, the goods were found in the applicant's almirah, the smuggled character of the goods was part of the case throughout, and the adjudicating authority was entitled to proceed on the statutory presumptions. The issue was therefore factual rather than legal.

Conclusion: No question of law arose on this contention.

Issue (iii): Whether the remaining grounds relating to conscious possession, benefit of doubt, the Collector's findings, and alleged variance from the show cause notice involved any question of law fit for reference.

Analysis: The findings on ownership, conscious and exclusive possession, and differential treatment of co-noticees depended on appreciation of evidence. The alleged new-case objection was found vague, and the other grounds were held to be factual in substance. Since the Tribunal had already examined the evidence and upheld the Collector's conclusions, no legal question survived for reference under the governing reference provisions.

Conclusion: The remaining grounds were factual or vague and did not warrant reference.

Final Conclusion: The applications failed because none of the points raised disclosed a referable question of law; the matters were either already settled in law or depended purely on facts and evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded by customs authorities during customs enquiry are not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India merely because an FIR has been registered, and questions turning only on appreciation of facts and evidence do not justify a statutory reference.

---