Section 108 statements were held admissible as substantive...

Section 108 statements were held admissible as substantive evidence to connect an implicated person with customs contraventions, and consistent recorded statements, corroborated by collateral material including forensic analysis of a detained mobile phone and other witness statements, furnished adequate material to sustain confiscation and penalties. The court accepted that the petitioner's communications, non-cooperation with summons and implicated statements of a money exchanger established knowledge and participation in improper export; differing relief granted to a passenger (redemption and re-export) did not warrant parity-based relief under equality principles. The petition was dismissed and impugned orders upheld.