Retraction and accomplice evidence in customs adjudication sustained confiscation of gold, but currency confiscation failed for lack of proof.

A retracted statement was not rejected merely because it alleged inducement, coercion and duress in general terms without particulars, and the later retraction was not accepted as enough to displace the earlier admission. Statements of other persons were treated as accomplice evidence rather than inadmissible co-accused evidence in adjudication, and corroboration was found in the appellant's own statement, so confiscation of the gold and the personal penalty were sustained. Confiscation of the currency amount was not supported by adequate evidence linking it to sale proceeds of contraband goods, so that confiscation was set aside, though the amount could be adjusted towards any unpaid penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's statement, after retraction, could still be relied upon for confiscation and penalty, and whether the statements of the other persons were inadmissible as co-accused evidence. (ii) Whether confiscation of the currency amount of Rs. 2,036/- was sustainable on the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's statement, after retraction, could still be relied upon for confiscation and penalty, and whether the statements of the other persons were inadmissible as co-accused evidence.

Analysis: The retraction was held insufficient to displace the earlier statement because it merely repeated the general expressions of inducement, coercion, threat and duress without particulars. The appellant did not complain before the magistrate or while in judicial custody, and the later letter was not accepted as a credible foundation for rejecting the original statement. The appellant's own admissions, including that he used others for disposal of the gold, were treated as sufficient evidence. The other persons' statements were not treated as statements of co-accused in adjudication; at most they were accomplice evidence, which is admissible and may be relied upon with corroboration, and corroboration was found in the appellant's own statement.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the gold and the personal penalty were upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the currency amount of Rs. 2,036/- was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: There was no adequate evidence to show that the currency represented sale proceeds of contraband goods. The evidentiary basis for confiscation of that amount was found wanting, although the department was permitted to appropriate it towards the penalty if payment remained unpaid.

Conclusion: The confiscation of Rs. 2,036/- was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained in substance as to confiscation of the gold and imposition of penalty, but relief was granted by invalidating the confiscation of the currency amount.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, a retracted statement is not automatically wiped out by mere general allegations of coercion, and accomplice-type evidence is admissible when sufficiently corroborated; however, confiscation must still rest on evidence connecting the specific property to the contraband activity.

---