Customs penalty and confiscation can rest on corroborated statements, while a driver's lesser culpability may justify reduced penalty.

Corroborated statements and surrounding material may sustain customs penalty on a preponderance of evidence, because strict criminal rules of proof do not apply in quasi-judicial customs proceedings; belated retraction may not displace earlier incriminating material. A driver's lesser role and limited culpability can justify reduction of penalty where the quantum is excessive. A conveyance used to transport smuggled goods is liable to confiscation, and redemption fine may be maintained, unless the statutory exception of absence of knowledge or connivance is established by the owner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty imposed on Kanwarjit Singh under the Customs Act was sustainable on the evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on Jagir Singh required reduction. (iii) Whether confiscation of the truck and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation were liable to interference.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty imposed on Kanwarjit Singh under the Customs Act was sustainable on the evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The evidence comprised statements of the driver, the second driver and other witnesses, all of which connected Kanwarjit Singh with the smuggling operation and the concealment of silver in the truck. The retraction of the incriminating statements was made after considerable delay and was not accepted as sufficient to displace the earlier material. In quasi-judicial customs proceedings, strict criminal rules of evidence do not apply, and corroborated statements may form the basis of liability.

Conclusion: The penalty on Kanwarjit Singh was upheld and no interference was called for.

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

Analysis: Jagir Singh's own statements and the surrounding material established his involvement in carrying contraband goods through a secret cavity in the truck. However, his role was treated as that of a driver acting under others, with limited personal gain and a lesser degree of culpability than the principal persons involved. On that footing, the quantum of penalty was considered excessive.

Conclusion: The penalty on Jagir Singh was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 10,000.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of the truck and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation were liable to interference.

Analysis: The truck had been used as a means of transport for smuggled goods, attracting confiscation under the statutory scheme. Liability of the conveyance did not depend on the owner's actual knowledge once the vehicle was used in smuggling, unless the statutory exception was established. The record did not justify interference with the confiscation order or the redemption fine.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the truck and the redemption fine were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of reducing the penalty on Jagir Singh, while the remaining reliefs were declined and the confiscation order was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, corroborated and unretracted or belatedly retracted statements may sustain penal action on a preponderance of evidence, and a conveyance used for smuggling is liable to confiscation unless the statutory exception of absence of knowledge or connivance is established by the owner.

---