Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Statements under Section 108 of Customs Act - Admissibility and Use in Detention Multiple sources clarify that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are generally considered illegal and inadmissible for certain proceedings, notably for passing detention orders under the COFEPOSA Act. The courts have consistently held that such statements cannot be used as sole material for detention decisions, especially if there has been no retraction, as retraction does not automatically legitimize their use ["Jamseena, W/o. Mohammed Shafi P. VS Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau - Kerala"], ["SAJMI vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"], ["JAMSEENA Vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"], ["JAMSEENA vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"], ["MUHAMMED RIYAS T.K vs THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER - Kerala"].
Relevance of Retraction of Confession Statements The fact that there has been no retraction of statements under Section 108 is deemed irrelevant to their admissibility or evidentiary value in detention proceedings. Courts have emphasized that the primary concern is whether the statements were obtained lawfully and whether they can be relied upon under the applicable legal framework. The absence of retraction does not convert inadmissible statements into admissible evidence ["Jamseena, W/o. Mohammed Shafi P. VS Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau - Kerala"], ["SAJMI vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"], ["JAMSEENA Vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"], ["JAMSEENA vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"].
Legal Framework and Judicial View Courts have distinguished the nature of Section 108 statements from judicial or magisterial proceedings, noting that these are semi-judicial or administrative in nature. They have also pointed out that such statements are not subject to the protections or requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which pertains to electronic records and is not applicable here ["Jamseena, W/o. Mohammed Shafi P. VS Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau - Kerala"], ["SAJMI vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"].
Impact on Detention and Evidence The consensus is that detention orders can be based on confession statements under Section 108, provided they are relevant and reliable. However, courts have also scrutinized whether the statements were obtained lawfully and without coercion. When allegations of duress or improper procedure are raised, courts tend to question the validity of relying solely on such statements ["Jubin Thomas Mathew vs Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) - Kerala"], ["MUHAMMED RIYAS T.K vs THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER - Kerala"], ["Jamseena, W/o. Mohammed Shafi P. VS Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau - Kerala"].
Additional Insights Statements recorded under Section 108 are considered distinct from police investigation statements and are primarily for administrative or semi-judicial purposes. Their evidentiary value depends on the context, procedural compliance, and whether they are retracted or obtained under duress. Courts have emphasized that procedural irregularities or coercion can render such statements inadmissible or unreliable ["Jubin Thomas Mathew vs Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) - Kerala"], ["MUHAMMED RIYAS T.K vs THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER - Kerala"].
Based on the cited rulings, the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are generally considered inadmissible as evidence in criminal proceedings and for passing detention orders, especially if obtained improperly or under duress. The absence of retraction does not automatically make these statements valid or admissible under the Evidence Act or for detention purposes. Courts have consistently held that such statements are not governed by Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and their use depends on procedural correctness and voluntariness.
In summary:- Statements under Section 108 are not automatically hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but their admissibility depends on the circumstances of their recording.- The absence of retraction alone does not legitimize their use in detention or judicial proceedings if they were obtained unlawfully or under coercion.- Courts emphasize procedural fairness, voluntariness, and compliance with legal standards before relying on such statements.
References:- ["Jamseena, W/o. Mohammed Shafi P. VS Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau - Kerala"]- ["SAJMI vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"]- ["JAMSEENA Vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"]- ["JAMSEENA vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"]- ["MUHAMMED RIYAS T.K vs THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER - Kerala"]- ["Jubin Thomas Mathew vs Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) - Kerala"]
In the realm of customs enforcement and criminal proceedings in India, a critical question often arises: Are statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, barred by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? This issue pits revenue inquiries against protections for confessions made to police officers. Understanding this distinction is vital for importers, exporters, legal practitioners, and anyone navigating customs disputes.
This blog post delves into the legal principles, judicial interpretations, and practical implications, drawing from established precedents. While courts have consistently upheld the admissibility of such statements, subject to certain safeguards, the analysis reveals a nuanced framework. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your circumstances.
Section 108 empowers customs officers to summon any person whose attendance they consider necessary for inquiry into matters related to customs violations. These statements are recorded during revenue enforcement proceedings, often involving smuggling, undervaluation, or illicit trade.
Unlike police investigations, these are adjudicatory inquiries aimed at determining civil liabilities like confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act. Courts have emphasized that Section 108 proceedings are not criminal investigations but inquiries for revenue enforcement, and the officers are not police officers Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Rajamundry VS Duncan Agro Industries LTD. - Supreme Court (2000)Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), Mumbai VS Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma - Supreme Court (2023)EDWIN ANDREW MINIHAN VS UNION OF INDIA - Kerala (2016)Kavitha G. Pillai VS Joint Director, Director of Enforcement, Government of India - Kerala (2017).
For instance, in cases involving seized gold, statements under Section 108 have been used to admit involvement in smuggling, as seen where Shri Rajendra Kumar Damani alias Raju Damani, in his statements recorded under Sec. 108 of Customs Act 1962, has admitted that these are the sale proceeds of the smuggled gold Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) VS Rajendra Kumar Damani @ Raju Damani - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1384.
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act declares that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. This safeguard prevents coerced confessions during custodial interrogations and stems from constitutional protections under Article 20(3), which guards against self-incrimination.
The key threshold: Is a customs officer a police officer under this provision? Judicial consensus answers no. Customs officers perform revenue functions, not criminal policing, distinguishing them from CrPC-defined police roles Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Rajamundry VS Duncan Agro Industries LTD. - Supreme Court (2000)Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), Mumbai VS Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma - Supreme Court (2023).
Multiple Supreme Court and High Court rulings affirm that statements under Section 108 are generally admissible. They are distinct from confessions recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and are not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Rajamundry VS Duncan Agro Industries LTD. - Supreme Court (2000)Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), Mumbai VS Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma - Supreme Court (2023)EDWIN ANDREW MINIHAN VS UNION OF INDIA - Kerala (2016)Kavitha G. Pillai VS Joint Director, Director of Enforcement, Government of India - Kerala (2017).
A landmark view states: Thus a Customs Officer under the Act of 1962 is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and the statements made before him by a person who is arrested or against whom an inquiry is made are not covered by Section 25 of the Evidence Act B. D. Goel VS Austin M. Gracious - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 1173.
This position holds even if the statement is confessional. As held: confessional statements recorded by Customs Officers under section 107 and 108 of the Act are not hit by section 25 or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India Suleman Yakub & others VS S. Reynolds, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) - 2000 Supreme(Bom) 347.
Directly addressing the core query, statements under Section 108 are not barred by Section 25 because customs officers lack police status. Since customs officers are not police officers, statements made under Section 108 are not barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Rajamundry VS Duncan Agro Industries LTD. - Supreme Court (2000)Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), Mumbai VS Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma - Supreme Court (2023)EDWIN ANDREW MINIHAN VS UNION OF INDIA - Kerala (2016)Kavitha G. Pillai VS Joint Director, Director of Enforcement, Government of India - Kerala (2017).
In smuggling prosecutions, courts rely on these as material evidence, provided they meet evidentiary standards. For example, in a gold seizure case, the court restored confiscation orders partly due to the accused's failure to rebut statements admitting illicit trade, alongside the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) VS Rajendra Kumar Damani @ Raju Damani - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1384.
Admissibility is not absolute. Courts must scrutinize voluntariness under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, which excludes confessions induced by threats, inducements, or promises. The courts emphasize that... the inculpatory portions of the statement were made voluntarily. If the statement is found to be induced by threats, promises, or coercion, it can be excluded under Section 24 Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Rajamundry VS Duncan Agro Industries LTD. - Supreme Court (2000)Kavitha G. Pillai VS Joint Director, Director of Enforcement, Government of India - Kerala (2017).
The test: The Court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged in Section 24 of the Evidence Act Shiv Shakti Steel Tubes VS Commissioner Of C. Ex. , Ludhiana - 2007 Supreme(P&H) 1618. Retracted statements require corroboration but remain usable if reliable Shamji Naran Aiyer VS State of Gujarat - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 1073.
In NDPS-linked customs cases, courts caution against equating Section 108 statements with stricter NDPS provisions like Section 67, stressing independent corroboration B. D. Goel VS Austin M. Gracious - 2015 Supreme(Bom) 1173.
The legal position is well settled, with consistent rulings:
One ruling clarifies: Statement of a person who is subsequently arrayed as accused... under Section 108, is not statement of an accused and officer recording such statement is not a police officer... Such statements if otherwise relevant under Section 24 read with Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act are admissible Shamji Naran Aiyer VS State of Gujarat - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 1073.
In excise analogs, similar statements under Section 14 are admissible with corroboration, mirroring customs logic Shiv Shakti Steel Tubes VS Commissioner Of C. Ex. , Ludhiana - 2007 Supreme(P&H) 1618.
For practitioners:- Burden Shifts: Accused must prove lawful possession under Section 123; statements shift this burden if voluntary Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) VS Rajendra Kumar Damani @ Raju Damani - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 1384.- Retracted Statements: Can form conviction basis if trustworthy, but examine witnesses if pressed as conclusive Shamji Naran Aiyer VS State of Gujarat - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 1073.- Adjudication vs. Trial: Useful in both, but trial courts avoid over-reliance without foundation (e.g., foreign marks alone insufficient) Shamji Naran Aiyer VS State of Gujarat - 2015 Supreme(Guj) 1073.
Recent cases, like vehicle seizures, highlight procedural fairness but affirm statement utility RAJESHKUMAR AMRATBHAI PATEL vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8495.
Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible and not barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as customs officers are not police. However, courts rigorously test voluntariness under Section 24.
Key Takeaways:- Admissible as material evidence in revenue and criminal matters Assistant Collector Of Central Excise, Rajamundry VS Duncan Agro Industries LTD. - Supreme Court (2000)Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), Mumbai VS Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma - Supreme Court (2023).- No Article 20(3) protection applies.- Ensure no coercion; seek retraction with corroboration challenges.- Well-settled law supports reliance if conditions met.
This framework balances enforcement with rights. For tailored advice, engage legal experts familiar with customs litigation.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
#CustomsLaw #EvidenceAct #LegalInsights
illegal and inadmissible, the fact that there has not been any retraction of the confession statements made under Section 108 cannot in any manner be relevant in as much as the statements under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used for passing an order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. ... We have no doubt that the detention orders can be passed upon the confession statements #HL....
Moreover, Shri Rajendra Kumar Damani alias Raju Damani, in his statements recorded under Sec. 108 of Customs Act 1962, has admitted that these are the sale proceeds of the smuggled gold and also that he had been involved in the said illicit trading of smuggled gold in the past also. ... Statement of Shri Rajendra Kumar Damani alias Raju Damani was recorded under Section 108#HL_....
Section 3(1)(i) of the said Act. 25. ... illegal and inadmissible, the fact that there has not been any retraction of the confession statements made under Section 108 cannot in any manner be relevant in as much as the statements under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used for passing an order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. ... We have no dou....
Section 3(1)(i) of the said Act. 25. ... illegal and inadmissible, the fact that there has not been any retraction of the confession statements made under Section 108 cannot in any manner be relevant in as much as the statements under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used for passing an order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. ... Having gone th....
Section 3(1)(i) of the said Act. 25. ... illegal and inadmissible, the fact that there has not been any retraction of the confession statements made under Section 108 cannot in any manner be relevant in as much as the statements under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used for passing an order of detention under the COFEPOSA Act. ... We have no dou....
On 05.12.2013, the 2nd respondent summoned one Mahesh Kumar Singh and his associate Ibrahim U/s. 108 of Customs Act, 1962 and recorded their statements. ... On the same day, summons under Sec 108 of Customs Act were issued to both IEC holder Mahesh Kumar Singh and his Power of Attorney Ibrahim, asking them to appear before Superintendent of C....
Consequently, the petitioner was served with multiple summons under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, 1962. But, the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation and is absconding from his known addresses of business and residence. ... In Padam Narain Aggarwal ’s case (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act#HL_END....
3.6 It appears that on 16.01.2025, DRI issued first summons under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, 1962 at the time of adjudication of the case. ... Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’). 3 The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The petitioner imported a new Toyota Land Cruiser LC300 Sahara from Dubai, UAE.
The next aspect highlighted by the petitioner is relating to the retraction from the statement given under Sec.108 of the Customs Act. ... Besides, the petitioner also contends that the petitioner had in fact, retracted from the statement given under Sec.108 of the Customs Act, immediately after recording the same, as the said statement was procured fr....
He also submitted that the impugned orders were passed erroneously by heavily relying upon the statements by SIIB officers during the inquiry for Customs case under Sec.108 of Customs Act and statements have been recorded in gross affront or directions issued by the Apex Court. ... The inquiry was conducted primarily based on statements recorded under Section ....
7. Whether in absence of cogent evidence establishing the articles to be of foreign origin, a mere mark of foreign origin affixed on the articles would be sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the articles were of foreign origin. 4. Whether statements under section 108 of the Customs Act are relevant for the purpose of section 24 and 29 of the Evidence Act. 2. Whether the Court would be justified in relying upon the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act in abs....
Thus a Customs Officer under the Act of 1962 is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and the statements made before him by a person who is arrested or against whom an inquiry is made are not covered by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is to be noted here that a statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act as stated hereinabove is recorded either during enquiry or investigation by a Customs Officer while conducting the enquiry or investigation under the ....
After referring to the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haroom Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 309 (S.C.) = AIR 1968 SC 832, their Lordships observed as under : The Court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. #28;We hold that a statement recorded by Customs Off....
It must be remembered that the statement made before the Customs Officials is not a statement recorded under Sec.161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. That material incriminates the petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. The material can certainly be used to connect the petitioner in the contravention in as much as Mr.Dudani’s statement clearly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. Therefore, it is a material piece of ....
It is also settled position of law that confessional statements recorded by Customs Officers under section 107 and 108 of the Act are not hit by section 25 or Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and this proposition has been laid down by the Apex Court in (Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh and another v. The State of Maharashtra and another)7, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1224. Thus, even if a statement recorded by a Customs Officer under section 108 of the Customs Act is in the nature of conf....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
