Foreign origin proved by voluntary statement can support confiscation, yet absolute confiscation may be moderated with redemption and reduced penalty.

A voluntary, unretracted inculpatory statement may be relied on to establish the foreign origin of seized semi-precious stones where seizure and possession are undisputed and no satisfactory evidence shows coercion or lawful acquisition. On that basis, the goods are liable to confiscation under customs law. Even so, absolute confiscation may be moderated on the facts, including long pendency, the nature and value of the goods, and changes in the import regime, so that redemption on payment of fine is allowed and the penalty is reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the seized semi-precious stones were proved to be of foreign origin so as to justify confiscation under the Customs Act, and (ii) whether absolute confiscation and the penalty required modification by allowing redemption of the goods and reducing the penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the seized semi-precious stones were proved to be of foreign origin so as to justify confiscation under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The seizure of the goods and the appellant's possession were not in dispute. Section 123 was inapplicable, but the appellant's own inculpatory statement admitting foreign origin was recorded on 17-9-1979 and was not retracted until after the reply to the show cause notice. No satisfactory material was produced to show that the statement had been obtained under threat or coercion, and the opportunity to cross-examine the recording officer did not yield anything supporting that plea. In these circumstances, the statement was accepted as voluntary and reliable. Once foreign origin was established, and no evidence of licit acquisition or lawful import was shown, the goods became liable to confiscation under the customs law.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation and the finding of confiscability was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether absolute confiscation and the penalty required modification by allowing redemption of the goods and reducing the penalty.

Analysis: Although confiscability was upheld, the long pendency of the matter since 1979, the value and nature of the goods, the procedural history, and the surrounding circumstances justified relief from absolute confiscation. The law was also noted to have changed so that similar goods were subject to import conditions rather than an absolute bar. On that basis, the order was modified to permit redemption on payment of fine, and the penalty was reduced.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was set aside in part, redemption was permitted on payment of fine, and the penalty was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The confiscability of the goods was maintained, but the relief granted substantially modified the operative order by replacing absolute confiscation with redemption and by reducing the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary and unretracted inculpatory statement may be relied upon to establish foreign origin, and where confiscability is otherwise made out, absolute confiscation may still be moderated by permitting redemption and adjusting penalty on the facts of the case.

---