Retraction and lack of corroboration defeat confiscation of non-notified goods and personal penalty in smuggling allegations.

For non-notified goods, confiscation and personal penalty cannot be sustained on the basis of a retracted statement alone unless the Revenue adduces positive corroborative evidence of smuggling. Here, the only incriminating material was the appellant's initial statement, which was retracted the next day, while receipts indicated that similar goods were being imported as baggage by different persons. On those facts, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove the contraband character of the goods, and an uncorroborated retracted statement was held insufficient. The confiscation and penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the decorative fluorescent bulbs and lamps and the personal penalty could be sustained on the basis of a retracted statement, in the absence of positive corroborative evidence, in respect of non-notified goods.

Analysis: The goods were treated as non-notified items. The only material relied upon by the Revenue was the appellant's initial statement, which was retracted on the very next day. The receipts produced by the appellant showed that similar goods were being imported as baggage by different persons. In such circumstances, the burden remained on the Revenue to establish smuggling by positive evidence. A retracted and uncorroborated statement was held insufficient to prove the contraband character of the goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---