Burden of proving lawful import of seized goods rests on the claimant when foreign origin is shown by record and statement evidence.

Confiscation of seized foreign-origin goods was upheld where the panchnama and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 supported the finding of foreign origin, and the appellant produced no documents showing lawful import or lawful possession. Entries in the registers were insufficient to identify the seized goods as goods lawfully held by the appellant. The burden to prove that the goods were not smuggled lay on the appellant, and that burden was not discharged. On that basis, the confiscation, redemption fine, personal penalty, and direction to pay customs duty at the appropriate rate were maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the seized goods and the imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the goods were not proved to be smuggled or illegally imported.

Analysis: The seized goods were treated as of foreign origin on the basis of the panchnama and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant did not produce documents to establish lawful import or lawful possession of the goods. The record also showed that the description in the registers did not establish identity of the seized goods as goods lawfully held by the appellant. The burden of proving that the goods were not smuggled goods was held to lie on the appellant, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the confiscation, redemption fine, personal penalty, or the direction to pay customs duty at the appropriate rate.

---