Delayed retraction of an incriminating statement may still sustain penalty even without independent corroboration.

Delayed and unexplained retraction of incriminating statements does not automatically erase their evidentiary value; the Tribunal noted that such statements may still support penalty against another person even without independent corroboration of physical presence. Telephone-call evidence was treated as insufficient on its own to prove presence, but it did not displace the statements implicating the appellant. On that reasoning, the penalty was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act could be sustained on the basis of the statements implicating the appellant, despite later retraction and absence of independent corroboration of his physical presence at the relevant time.

Analysis: The statements of the two persons from whom foreign-mark gold was recovered were not retracted immediately and were retracted only after about six months without any satisfactory explanation. Such delayed retraction materially reduced their evidentiary value. The appellant's plea that he was in Rajasthan did not by itself displace those statements. The telephone-call evidence was treated as insufficient on its own to prove his presence, but the Tribunal held that this did not undermine the statements implicating him. A statement implicating both the maker and another person in a contravention can be relied upon against the other person for the purpose of penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A delayed and unexplained retraction of an incriminating statement does not neutralise its probative value, and such a statement may be used to impose penalty on another person even without independent corroboration.

---