Customs penalties upheld where Section 108 statements and corroborating material established involvement in smuggling and exchange arrangements.

Section 108 statements under the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as admissible substantive evidence in customs proceedings when they were consistent and corroborated by collateral material, including another noticee's statement and forensic extraction from a mobile phone. On that basis, the High Court upheld the finding that the petitioner was involved in conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation and sustained the penalty and related customs consequences. The plea for parity with relief granted to the carrier was rejected because Article 14 cannot be used to claim equal treatment with a person who has violated the law. The challenge failed for want of merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty and allied customs consequences imposed on the petitioner were unsustainable for want of sufficient incriminating material and whether parity could be claimed from relief granted to the carrier.

Analysis: The statement of the passenger recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was found to be consistent across multiple occasions and was supported by collateral material, including the statement of the other noticee and forensic extraction from the mobile phone, which connected the petitioner with the smuggling and exchange arrangement. The Court treated the Section 108 statement as admissible material capable of being used as substantive evidence in customs proceedings. On that basis, the petitioner's involvement in acts rendering the goods liable to confiscation and the imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 were held to be justified. The plea of parity based on the relief granted to the carrier was rejected, as Article 14 could not be invoked to seek equal treatment with a person who had violated the law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the customs penalties and related findings failed, and the petitioner was not entitled to relief on the ground of alleged insufficiency of evidence or parity.

---