Burden of proving seized notified fabric was not smuggled remained unmet, so confiscation and penalty were sustained.

Notified synthetic fabric seized from business premises was treated as liable to confiscation because the person from whom it was seized, or who claimed ownership, had to prove that the goods were not smuggled. A purchase bill and a later affidavit from the alleged seller were insufficient, as the recovery was admitted and the burden under the notified provision was not discharged to the Tribunal's satisfaction. On that basis, the confiscation and penalty were sustained and the concurrent findings of the lower authorities were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized synthetic fabric was liable to confiscation and the penalty sustained when the appellant claimed lawful purchase, and whether the burden under the notified provision had been discharged by the appellant.

Analysis: The appellant admitted recovery of the goods from his business premises and relied on a purchase bill and later affidavit from the alleged seller. The Tribunal noted that, for notified fabrics, the burden to prove that the goods are not smuggled lay on the person from whom the goods were seized or who claimed ownership. Since the recovery and seizure were not disputed and the appellant failed to discharge that burden to the Tribunal's satisfaction, there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld against the appellant.

---