Retraction and lack of corroboration bar Customs penalty based only on co-accused statements and weak accomplice evidence.

Penalty under the Customs Act could not be sustained where the only link to the appellant was retracted and mutually inconsistent statements of co-accused and witnesses. The evidence lacked independent corroboration in material particulars, and seizure of contraband alone did not establish the appellant's personal complicity in the alleged smuggling transaction. Applying the settled rule that retracted confessional or accomplice evidence is weak and cannot safely found liability without strong corroboration, the material was held unreliable and the penalty was rejected in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the basis of retracted statements of co-accused without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The only material connecting the appellant with the alleged smuggling transaction consisted of statements of co-accused and associated witnesses, but those statements were retracted, materially inconsistent, and mutually contradictory. The evidence did not supply independent corroboration implicating the appellant in the transaction, and the seizure of contraband by itself did not amount to corroboration of the appellant's personal complicity. Applying the settled rule that a retracted confession or accomplice evidence is weak and cannot safely form the foundation of liability without strong corroboration in material particulars, the evidence was found unreliable.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained and the finding was in favour of the appellant.

---