Contradictory co-accused statements cannot sustain personal customs penalty without reliable corroboration; benefit of doubt applied.

Personal penalty under customs proceedings was held unsustainable where the department relied mainly on contradictory co-accused statements without reliable corroboration. The person said to have directly loaded the smuggled goods was not proceeded against, while liability was sought to be fixed on the appellant only on the basis of alleged instigation. On this evidentiary record, the chain of proof was found insufficient to establish guilt with certainty, and the appellant was given the benefit of doubt. The penalty was accordingly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged involvement in loading and transportation of smuggled goods could be sustained on the basis of contradictory statements of co-accused and surrounding evidence.

Analysis: The evidence relied upon by the department consisted mainly of statements that were not consistent with one another. The person said to have actually loaded the goods was not proceeded against, while the appellant was sought to be fastened with liability only on the basis that the loading was done at his instance. In the circumstances, the evidentiary chain was found insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt with certainty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was extended the benefit of doubt, and the personal penalty imposed under the customs proceedings was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence against a person consists of contradictory co-accused statements without reliable corroboration, and the person said to have directly participated is not proceeded against, personal penalty cannot be sustained and benefit of doubt must follow.

---