Per Shri T.P. Nambiar :

The present appeal is filed against the orders passed by the Collector wherein a penalty of Rs. Twenty lakhs is imposed on the appellant.

2. This case pertains to the seizure of 900 Gold Biscuits seized from the house of Mr. N.K. Abdul Rahiman and the arrest was made on 22.2.1989. Thereafter, the investigation was done by the departmental officers. They have taken the statements from Mr. K. Abdulla, Mr. K.T. Sathar, Mr. K.V. Ismail and Mr. Aliakbar. These persons excepting Mr. Aliakbar have given the statement to the effect that the appellant is involved in the above said landing and transportation of 900 gold biscuits valuing Rs. 3,50,34,930/-. Thereafter, on the follow-up action, there was a car No. KEZ 2028 and 1596 nos. of smuggled gold biscuits valuing Rs. 6,14,10,888/- were also seized. These gold biscuits were also a part of the adjudicating proceedings and the appellant was implicated in this case by the above said persons.

3. The learned advocate Shri P.V. Rajagopalan, Advocate appearing for the appellants contended before us that the only evidence available in this case is the confessional statements of co-accused which is not sufficient to fasten the liability against the appellants. In this connection, he drew our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 and also the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 832. Relying on the said decision, the learned advocate contended that the confession of co-accused alone is not sufficient to find the appellant's guilty. In this connection, he pointed out that if there is some evidence available then the confessional statements, can be used as a corroboration on the existing evidences. He also pointed out that at best it can be said that the confessional statements of the co-accused must be corroborated materially. Unless there is such corroboration, he pointed out that the accused appellant cannot be penalised. It was further pointed out that the statements given by the above said persons were retracted by them. In this connection, he pointed out that the retraction was made about two months after taking of the confessional statement. He further pointed out that when the appellants were produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate has passed the order to the effect that the appellants should be given medical treatment. It was therefore pointed out that there was man handling of the appellants. He pointed out that though it was not specifically mentioned by the Magistrate in his order, still it can be presumed that there was some man handling of the appellants, as otherwise there was no necessity for the learned Magistrate to state in the order that he should be given the medical treatment. He, therefore, pointed out that the value of the confessional statement is very much diminished and much reliance cannot be placed on the same. He, further, stated that the police have arrested the appellant on 24.2.1989 and they were handed over to the Customs Department immediately thereafter. In this connection, he pointed out that these persons were produced before the Magistrate on 27.2.1989. It was therefore pointed out that the appellants were in the custody of the officers from 24.2.89 to 27.2.89 and therefore there was prolonged custody of the appellant as well as the other co-accused. He, therefore, pointed out that the value of the confessional statement is diminished and no reliance can be placed on the same. In this connection, he relied on the single member decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 1995 (80) ELT 762. Relying on the above said decision, he stated that the arrest would be complete in law when he was taken charge by the Customs Department. He, therefore pointed out that there was prolonged detention and therefore the value to be attached to the confessional statement is diminished. It is therefore pointed out that in the statement it was stated that the appellant as w