Retracted confession and lack of corroboration cannot sustain gold confiscation; unresolved lawful-possession defence required remand.

Confiscation of gold and penalty under the Customs Act were held unsustainable because the assay evidence was unreliable, the confessional statements had been retracted early, possible coercion was indicated, and no corroborative evidence proved foreign origin. Section 123 of the Customs Act was found inapplicable on the facts, so the burden of proof did not shift and smuggled character was not established. On the Gold (Control) Act issues, the adjudicating authority had not examined the defence that the gold was lawfully carried for a licensed dealer with proper records, so the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of gold and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the basis of the assay report, the retracted confessional statements, and Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required fresh adjudication because the defence on lawful possession and carriage of primary gold had not been examined.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of gold and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the basis of the assay report, the retracted confessional statements, and Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The assay evidence was treated as unreliable because purity had been described only approximately and the method used was less accurate than the touch method. The confessional statements were found to have been retracted at an early stage, with material indicating possible coercion, and no corroborative evidence supported the alleged foreign origin of the gold. Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held not to apply on the facts, as the requisite basis for shifting the burden was not established. In the absence of corroboration, the smuggled character of the gold was not proved.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required fresh adjudication because the defence on lawful possession and carriage of primary gold had not been examined.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had not dealt with the defence that the gold was carried on behalf of a licensed dealer and that the relevant records had been maintained and checked. Since the liability under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 depended on whether the appellant was entitled to possess primary gold and that issue had not been examined, the Tribunal declined to decide the merits itself and considered remand appropriate for proper adjudication on the primary questions.

Conclusion: The orders were set aside insofar as they related to the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

Final Conclusion: The Customs Act, 1962 findings were annulled, while the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 aspects were sent back for fresh decision after consideration of the appellant's defence.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession, unsupported by corroborative evidence and surrounded by circumstances suggesting involuntariness, cannot by itself sustain confiscation or penalty; where a core defence under the governing statute has not been examined, remand for de novo adjudication is appropriate.

---