Customs adjudication evidence: Section 108 statements with corroboration can sustain penalties, but mere association is insufficient.

Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were held admissible in adjudication despite later retraction, because the persons were under customs enquiry rather than criminal prosecution and Article 20(3) did not bar reliance on them in the manner argued. Corroboration from seizure records, diaries, hotel records, and other circumstantial material strengthened their evidentiary value. On penalties, the record was sufficient to sustain penalties against Raj Kishore Gupta, Raghunandan Jalan, and Om Prakash Jalan, whose conduct and incriminating material linked them to the contraband activity. The material against Vinod Bansal was found insufficient, as acquaintance and diary references alone did not establish involvement in disposal of smuggled gold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under the Customs Act from the apprehended persons could be relied upon in adjudication, notwithstanding retraction and objections based on custody and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record, including the case made out against the individual appellants.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under the Customs Act from the apprehended persons could be relied upon in adjudication, notwithstanding retraction and objections based on custody and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statements were recorded when the persons concerned were under customs enquiry, not as persons formally accused in a criminal prosecution. A statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible in adjudication, and the bar under Article 20(3) does not apply in the manner suggested. Late retraction after a substantial interval was treated as of little evidentiary value. The statements were also supported by independent and circumstantial material, including seizure records, diaries, hotel records, and corroborative testimony. Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not treated as excluding reliance on such material in adjudication.

Conclusion: The statements and supporting material were rightly relied upon for adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record, including the case made out against the individual appellants.

Analysis: The evidence against Raj Kishore Gupta, Raghunandan Jalan, and Om Prakash Jalan was held sufficient when read with the incriminating statements, documentary evidence, and their conduct in evading summons. The adjudicating authority's findings were treated as supported by the record, and the penalties on those three appellants were upheld. In contrast, the material against Vinod Bansal was found insufficient, since the case rested mainly on acquaintance, diary entries, and discreet enquiries without adequate direct or corroborative proof linking him to disposal of smuggled gold. Mere knowledge of other persons and possession of names or telephone numbers was held insufficient to sustain penalty.

Conclusion: Penalties on Raj Kishore Gupta, Raghunandan Jalan, and Om Prakash Jalan were sustained, but the penalty on Vinod Bansal was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was upheld against three appellants, while relief was granted to Vinod Bansal by deleting the penalty imposed on him.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication, a statement recorded under Section 108 may be relied upon with corroborative and circumstantial evidence despite belated retraction, but penalty cannot rest on mere association or suspicion without sufficient material linking the person to the contraband activity.

---