Burden of proving smuggled character remains on Revenue for non-notified goods; confiscation cannot rest on suspicion alone.

For non-notified metal scrap, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove smuggled character because Section 123 and Chapter IVA of the Customs Act did not apply. The record contained no evidence of foreign origin or smuggling, and foreign markings or the place of booking were held insufficient to sustain confiscation on suspicion alone. In the absence of proof, the benefit of doubt went to the respondent, so confiscation and penalty were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation and penalty in respect of metal scrap were sustainable when the goods were non-notified and the Revenue had not proved their smuggled character.

Analysis: The scrap was held to be outside the scope of Section 123 of the Customs Act and Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, so the burden remained on the department to establish that the goods were smuggled. The record disclosed no evidence proving foreign origin or smuggled nature, and mere suspicion arising from foreign markings or the place of booking was held insufficient. In the absence of proof, the benefit of doubt was found to be available to the respondent.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In respect of non-notified goods, the burden of proving that the goods are smuggled lies on the Revenue, and confiscation cannot rest on suspicion alone.

---