2006 (4) TMI 177 - HC - Customs

Gold Smuggling - Evidence - authenticity, genuineness and voluntary nature of confessional statement recorded immediately after seizure u/s 108 - belated retraction of confessional statements - burden of proof u/s 123 - HELD THAT - We are of opinion that the alleged statements of the respondents recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act were not voluntary. The retracted confessional statements in the present case are acceptable as it appears from the facts and circumstances that the alleged original statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act were obtained under threat and coercion and without following the legal procedures which was even admitted by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal very rightly expressed doubt on voluntary character of the statements. In the present case, the preponderance of probabilities are not in favour of the Customs Authorities, that is, the appellants and, in quasi-judicial proceedings mathematical precision is not required but in the present case the appellant hopelessly failed to establish their prima facie case that the lumps of gold seized from the respondents were of foreign origin or smuggled by them into India. Relating to the shifting of burden of proof in view of Section 123 of the Customs Act, we have already given the answer through our discussion made above that, the respondents were able to discharge to their onus and the appellant failed to establish that the gold seized from respondents were smuggled into India. We are clearly of opinion that the Tribunal i.e. CEGAT rightly observed that it is well-settled that sufficiency of evidence does not raise any question of law and rightly rejected the application for making reference to this Court. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal which requires reference to this Court for giving answer to the points of reference. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. We make it clear that there will be no order as to costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Authenticity, genuineness, and voluntary nature of confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
2. Legal validity and acceptability of belated retraction of confessional statements.
3. Proof standard in quasi-judicial proceedings: mathematical precision vs. preponderance of probabilities.
4. Burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authenticity, Genuineness, and Voluntary Nature of Confessional Statements:
The High Court examined whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were voluntary. The respondents were intercepted and found with gold, which they allegedly admitted to being smuggled. The statements recorded were later retracted, with respondents claiming they were obtained under coercion. The Court noted discrepancies in the recording process, such as differences in dates and the manner of writing, which suggested the statements were not voluntary. The Court emphasized that statements under Section 108, although admissible, must be voluntary and free from coercion to be credible.

2. Legal Validity and Acceptability of Belated Retraction of Confessional Statements:
The Court considered the respondents' retraction of their confessional statements after being released on bail. It highlighted that retracted confessions could not be entirely dismissed unless it was proven that the original statements were obtained under duress. The Court found that the respondents' claims of coercion were credible, given the inconsistencies in the recording process and the failure to follow proper procedures, such as issuing summons before recording statements.

3. Proof Standard in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings:
The Court discussed whether an offence in quasi-judicial proceedings needs to be proved with mathematical precision or if a preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. It concluded that in quasi-judicial proceedings, mathematical precision is not required, but the evidence must be sufficient to establish a prima facie case. In this case, the Customs Authorities failed to provide independent corroborative evidence to support their claims, leading the Court to rule in favor of the respondents.

4. Burden of Proof Under Section 123 of the Customs Act:
The Court assessed whether the burden of proof was shifted to the Customs Authorities under Section 123 of the Customs Act. It determined that the respondents successfully discharged their burden by providing credible explanations and evidence, such as affidavits from individuals in Vijaywada confirming the legitimate purpose of their visit to Calcutta. The Customs Authorities, on the other hand, failed to prove that the seized gold was of foreign origin and smuggled into India.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, which had set aside the orders of confiscation and penalties imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court found no substantial question of law warranting a reference to the High Court, as the Tribunal had rightly concluded that sufficiency of evidence does not raise a question of law. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →