Burden of proving smuggled character for non-notified goods remains on Revenue despite absence of import documents.

For non-notified goods, Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not shift the burden to the possessor to prove lawful importation. The Revenue must prove that the goods are smuggled, and mere failure to produce purchase or import documents is insufficient by itself to establish smuggled character. On the facts stated, no evidence of illegal importation was produced for the photo films and cameras, so confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in respect of non-notified goods found in possession of a person, the burden lay on the Revenue to prove that the goods were smuggled, and whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained merely because the possessor could not produce documents showing legal importation.

Analysis: The goods were treated as non-notified. In such cases, the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not shift the burden to the possessor to establish lawful importation. Mere absence of purchase or import documents does not, by itself, establish that the goods are smuggled. The confiscation could not be sustained without evidence from the Revenue showing illegal importation or smuggled character of the goods.

Conclusion: The burden remained on the Revenue, and since no evidence was produced to prove that the photo films and cameras were smuggled, the confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and the finding was in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation and penalty was set aside, and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, smuggled character must be proved by the Revenue, and the mere inability of the possessor to produce documents of legal importation is insufficient to justify confiscation or penalty.

---