Confiscation under Customs law requires proof of import prohibition breach; mere suspicion cannot sustain seizure.

Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act is sustainable only where the import is contrary to a prohibition imposed by law. On the stated facts, the import was found to comply with the relevant legal provisions and no contravention was proved, so confiscation could not be justified on mere suspicion or on apprehension about the importer's future conduct. The confiscation was therefore unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when no contravention of an import prohibition was established.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 111(d) is attracted only where the import is contrary to a prohibition imposed by the Customs Act or any other law. The import in the present case was found to be in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, and no contravention was proved. An order of confiscation cannot rest on mere suspicion or on about the importer's future conduct.

Conclusion: The confiscation was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---