Uncorroborated driver statement cannot sustain penalty, while truck confiscation may stand with a reduced redemption fine.

An uncorroborated statement of a driver, unsupported by independent evidence, was held insufficient to sustain a personal penalty against the truck owner, and the penalty was deleted. In relation to confiscation of the truck under the Customs Act, the vehicle remained in the recorded owner's name and there was no showing that the owner was involved in transporting the contraband; confiscation was therefore upheld. However, the redemption fine was found excessive on the facts and was reduced to a token amount. The note confirms that adverse penal consequences require reliable supporting evidence, while confiscation may still stand where statutory conditions are met, subject to proportionality in the fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the personal penalty imposed on the truck owner was sustainable on the basis of an uncorroborated statement of the driver; (ii) whether the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was to be maintained while reducing the redemption fine.

Issue (i): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the truck owner was sustainable on the basis of an uncorroborated statement of the driver.

Analysis: The only material relied upon against the appellant was the statement of the driver, which was not supported by any independent evidence. An uncorroborated statement of a co-accused could not be treated as legal evidence for fastening adverse consequences when the same material had not been relied upon against other noticees.

Conclusion: The personal penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was to be maintained while reducing the redemption fine.

Analysis: The truck remained in the name of the recorded owner, who was not shown to have been involved in the transportation of the contraband. The confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine was considered excessive in the circumstances and was reduced to a token amount.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld and the redemption fine was reduced in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by deleting the penalty in one case and retaining confiscation of the truck with a substantially reduced redemption fine in the other.

Ratio Decidendi: An uncorroborated statement of a co-accused, without independent supporting evidence, cannot by itself sustain an adverse penal finding; confiscation may nevertheless be upheld where the statutory conditions are met, subject to appropriate reduction of redemption fine in the facts of the case.

---