Retracted confession and lack of corroboration defeated customs penalty for alleged abetment in export misdeclaration.

A Customs House Clearing Agent could not be penalised for alleged abetment of export misdeclaration under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 because the record did not establish knowledge, participation, or any independent corroboration of the alleged scheme. The exporter's statements did not implicate the agent, the agent's initial statement was exculpatory, and later inculpatory statements were treated as doubtful in voluntariness because they were recorded while he remained in custody late at night and early morning. In penal customs proceedings, a retracted confession must be voluntary, true, and supported by independent evidence; mere negligence or lack of diligence is insufficient for liability. The penalty was therefore set aside and the agent was exonerated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the Custom House Clearing Agent under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment in the export misdeclaration was sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were misdeclared in the shipping bill, but the exporter's statements did not implicate the appellant in the clandestine scheme. The appellant's initial statement was exculpatory, and the later inculpatory statements were recorded while he remained in custody late into the night and early morning, creating serious doubt about their voluntariness. A confessional statement must be voluntary and true to be admissible, and a retracted statement in penal proceedings requires corroboration. On the record, there was no independent material establishing knowledge, participation, or abetment by the appellant; at most, the circumstances suggested negligence or lack of diligence, which was insufficient to attract penal liability under the Act.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable against the appellant, and he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was exonerated of the charge and the impugned order imposing penalty was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In penal customs proceedings, a retracted confessional statement cannot, without independent corroboration and proof of voluntariness, form the sole basis for fastening liability for abetment.

---