TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from co-accused, though retracted later, could be relied upon as substantive evidence to sustain the finding of guilt. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant required reduction on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issue (i): Whether the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from co-accused, though retracted later, could be relied upon as substantive evidence to sustain the finding of guilt.
Analysis: The retraction was made after about two months and no credible material was produced to show that the statements were obtained by threat, coercion, duress, or illegal detention. The burden lay on the person disputing voluntariness to establish the alleged infirmity. Statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 are admissible and can be used as substantive evidence. The statements here were detailed, mutually corroborative, and were also supported by surrounding circumstances, including the seizure of gold biscuits and the car used in the operation.
Conclusion: The statements were reliable and could be acted upon to uphold the appellant's involvement.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant required reduction on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Analysis: The appellant played a major role in a large-scale smuggling operation, and a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was not excessive in isolation. However, the penalty imposed on a co-participant was only a token amount, and the overall circumstances, including parity in culpability and the manner of assessment of penalties on connected persons, justified some reduction. The appellate forum considered the totality of circumstances and the interests of justice.
Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs.
Final Conclusion: The finding of culpability was maintained, but the punitive burden was moderated by reducing the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act remains admissible and may be relied upon as substantive evidence if its voluntariness and truth are not disproved, and the quantum of penalty may be adjusted where the overall circumstances justify moderation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
