Concealment under customs law requires actual use of goods to hide smuggled items; mere covering is insufficient.

For Section 119 of the Customs Act, confiscation of indigenous goods requires proof that the goods were actually used to conceal smuggled articles. Mere placement of contraband beneath or behind Indian-origin goods is not enough to establish concealment. On the facts recorded, no material showed that the indigenous goods had been used to hide foreign-origin contraband, so confiscation could not be sustained. The redemption fine deposited in respect of those goods was therefore directed to be released.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of indigenous goods alleged to have been used for concealing contraband foreign-origin goods was sustainable, and whether the redemption fine deposited in respect of such goods was liable to be released.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that for attracting Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, there must be articles actually used for concealment of smuggled goods. Mere coverage of contraband items by Indian-origin goods does not amount to concealment. As no material showed that the indigenous goods were used to hide the smuggled goods, the confiscation could not stand.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the indigenous goods was set aside and the authorities were directed to release the redemption fine deposited by the appellants.

---