Section 108 statements constitute substantive evidence; Article 14 parity is unavailable for legal contraventions.

The Petitioner, a Ludhiana-based jeweler, challenged a revisional order dated March 30, 2022, which upheld a penalty of ₹16,00,000/- imposed on him for involvement in gold smuggling

The matter originated when a passenger, Salil Puri, was intercepted at IGI Airport with approximately 1 kg of gold

In statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the passenger confessed to acting as a carrier for the Petitioner and revealed three prior instances of smuggling totaling 2,920 grams of gold valued at ₹81,76,000/-

Further investigations, including statements from a money exchanger (Raman Kumar) and forensic analysis of the passenger’s mobile phone, established a financial and communicative link between the Petitioner and the smuggling operation

The Petitioner failed to cooperate with summons prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice

The Court primarily applied Sections 111, 112, 114A, 114AA, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, which govern the confiscation of goods and the imposition of penalties for improper importation and use of false documents

It relied on the evidentiary principle established in Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India (1995), which holds that a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is substantive evidence and can be used to implicate co-noticees, unlike statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC

The Court applied the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to claim "negative equality" or parity in illegal acts

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s involvement was corroborated by consistent statements from both the carrier and the money exchanger, which detailed the logistics of currency exchange and gold delivery

This testimonial evidence was reinforced by forensic analysis of mobile data, which established a direct relationship between the parties for the purpose of purchasing and bringing gold into India

Applying the Naresh J. Sukhawani precedent, the Court held that these Section 108 statements constituted a legal basis for the penalty, as they clearly inculpated the Petitioner in the contravention of the Act

The Court further reasoned that the Petitioner's intent to deal with goods he knew were liable for confiscation justified the levy of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA

It held that there was sufficient material to connect the Petitioner to the smuggling activities and that the penalty was in accordance with statutory mandates

The Court rejected the Petitioner's plea for parity with the passenger, ruling that Article 14 of the Constitution does not provide for equal treatment in the context of flouting the law

No grounds were found for interference in the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction