Corroboration and cross-examination are essential before customs penalty and confiscation can stand on statements and cash recovery.

Penal consequences under the Customs Act, 1962 cannot rest principally on recorded statements and cash recovery unless the material is independently corroborated and the affected party is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine. The text notes that the statements were later retracted at the first available opportunity, while the cash seized from the residential premises was not linked by specific independent evidence to any smuggling activity. In the absence of corroboration and effective cross-examination, the evidentiary foundation was treated as insufficient, and the penalty and connected confiscation findings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty and confiscation based principally on the appellant's recorded statements and cash recovery, without independent corroboration and without proper opportunity of cross-examination, were sustainable under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The evidence against the appellant rested substantially on statements recorded during custody and on the recovery of cash from the residential premises. The statements were later not supported at the first available opportunity, and the explanation offered for the cash recovery was not shown to be false by any specific independent material linking the amount to smuggling activity. The absence of corroborative evidence, together with denial of effective opportunity to test the material by cross-examination, rendered the evidentiary basis insufficient for sustaining penal consequences.

Conclusion: The penalty and connected adverse findings were held unsustainable and were set aside, with the appeal allowed.

---