Corroborated accomplice statements can sustain departmental penalty liability when supported by surrounding evidence and statutory limits.

Corroborated accomplice statements recorded under customs summons provisions can be relied on in departmental penalty proceedings, because the evidentiary standard is lower than in criminal trials. The Tribunal accepted the tindel's statement, crew statements, account books, seizure material and other surrounding circumstances, and rejected the argument that absence of independent evidence invalidated liability. It also held that the penalty was not excessive, since the adjudicating authority gave reasons and the amount remained within the statutory ceiling. The penalty under the Gold (Control) Act was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act was sustainable on the basis of the statements of the tindel, crew members and other persons involved, and whether the quantum of penalty was excessive or harsh.

Analysis: The statement of the tindel was recorded soon after seizure operations, when the vessel had been intercepted, searched and contraband goods recovered over a continuous period. The record also contained corroboration from the seized goods, the account books maintained for the voyage and repairs, the statement of the registered driver, the statements of the other crew members, and the statements of the landing agents. These statements were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and were treated as admissible evidence. The Tribunal held that such accomplice evidence could be acted upon in departmental proceedings, where the standard of proof is lower than in criminal trials, and rejected the contention that absence of independent evidence vitiated the penalty. On quantum, the Tribunal noted that the value of the gold was substantial and that the adjudicating authority had given reasons for the amount imposed, which was within the permissible statutory limit.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act was upheld and the challenge to its quantum failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was held liable on the basis of corroborated statements and surrounding circumstances, and the penalty order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In departmental confiscation and penalty proceedings, corroborated accomplice statements recorded under customs summons provisions can be relied upon to sustain liability, and the quantum of penalty will not be interfered with if it falls within the statutory ceiling and is supported by reasons.

---