The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), Allahabad has emphasised that confessions made under Section 108 of the Customs Act are not sufficient to convict individuals in smuggling cases unless corroborated by independent evidence.
The appellants, Shri Raj Kumar Singh, the proprietor of M/s Bunti Scrap Suppliers and Shri Harishchandra Singh, represented by Ms Surabhi Sinha contended that the confession made under Section 108 of the Customs Act was retracted and should not be used as the sole basis for conviction.
Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now
It was also argued that the confession was made under duress and pressure from authorities, and without independent corroborative evidence, such a confession cannot be considered reliable. They emphasised that the lack of additional evidence linking the appellant to the offence made the conviction unjust.
The respondent revenue, Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow, represented by Shri A.K. Choudhary argued that the confession made by the appellant under Section 108 was voluntary and should be treated as valid evidence under the Customs Act.
They contended that the confession was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant in the smuggling case. The revenue also asserted that the appellant’s retraction did not invalidate the confession and that the confession, along with other circumstantial evidence, proved the appellant’s involvement in smuggling.
Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now
The two-member bench of the CESTAT comprising Mr. P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) found that while confessions are admissible under the Customs Act, they must be supported by other pieces of evidence, such as the recovery of contraband or testimony from independent witnesses, for a conviction to stand.
The case in question involved an individual accused of smuggling prohibited goods, based primarily on a confession made to customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The appellant had retracted the confession, claiming it was made under duress and pressure from authorities. The CESTAT observed that while confessions under Section 108 can be compelling evidence, they cannot serve as the sole basis for a conviction without corroborative support.
Master GST Notice Replies – Drafting 20 Notices, Including Appeals – Register Now
The CESTAT underlined the need for a fair and just legal process, stating that it is essential for the prosecution to provide additional proof linking the accused to the crime. The judgment highlighted the principle that a confession should not be accepted as conclusive evidence of guilt unless it is substantiated by other reliable evidence.
The ruling stressed that law enforcement agencies must gather concrete evidence to support any confessions made, ensuring that the rights of the accused are not compromised. The decision is in line with the need for corroboration in the conviction of accused individuals based on confessions. The bench also highlighted the need for careful scrutiny of confessions in smuggling cases and the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of justice.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
