Delayed retraction of an inculpatory statement may fail to defeat customs confiscation, though penalty can still be reduced.

A delayed retraction of an inculpatory statement will not, by itself, displace its voluntariness where the goods are of foreign origin, the person in possession disowns them, and there is no contemporaneous complaint of coercion or illegal detention. On those facts, the statement may be treated as reliable to sustain customs charge and confiscation, and a plea under Section 24 of the Evidence Act may fail. Even so, penalty may be moderated on equitable grounds such as the age of the seizure and the surrounding circumstances, while liability remains intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inculpatory statement was voluntary and reliable so as to sustain the charge and confiscation under the Customs law; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the inculpatory statement was voluntary and reliable so as to sustain the charge and confiscation under the Customs law.

Analysis: The goods of foreign origin were found in the appellant's possession and the appellant did not claim any connection with them. The statement admitting involvement was retracted only after about four months in reply to the show-cause notice. The delayed retraction, absence of any contemporaneous grievance before the Magistrate regarding coercion or illegal detention, and the surrounding circumstances led to acceptance of the statement as voluntary and true. The plea based on coercion and Section 24 of the Evidence Act was held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The charge was held to be proved and the confiscation was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed required reduction.

Analysis: Taking into account the age of the seizure, the fact that the appellant had disowned the goods, and the overall circumstances, the penalty was considered excessive. The interests of justice were met by reducing the penalty while leaving the finding of liability intact.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits as to confiscation and liability, but succeeded to the limited extent of reduction of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A delayed retraction unsupported by contemporaneous protest or credible evidence of coercion will not dislodge a voluntary inculpatory statement, though the penalty may still be moderated on equitable considerations.

---