Confiscation of non-notified OGL goods requires proof of smuggling; rejected purchase documents alone cannot sustain penalty.

Confiscation of a power tiller could not be sustained merely because the purchase documents were not accepted by the named seller. In the absence of affirmative evidence that the goods were smuggled, and since the item was treated as an OGL and non-notified good, the reverse-burden provisions applicable to notified goods did not apply. On that basis, the confiscation failed, and the personal penalty, being dependent on the confiscation, also lacked foundation. The confiscation and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the power tiller and imposition of personal penalty were sustainable in the absence of evidence that the goods were smuggled, when the article was claimed to be an OGL item and a non-notified item.

Analysis: The confiscation rested only on the circumstance that the purchase documents produced by the appellant were not accepted by the named seller. That circumstance, by itself, did not establish that the power tiller had a tainted character or had been smuggled into India. In the absence of evidence from the Revenue showing smuggling, and given that the item was stated to be an OGL item and not covered by the reverse burden provisions applicable to notified goods, confiscation could not be sustained. The consequent penalty also lacked foundation once the confiscation failed.

Conclusion: The confiscation and personal penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere discrediting of purchase documents does not, without affirmative evidence of smuggling, justify confiscation or penalty for a non-notified OGL item.

---