Burden of proof for smuggled non-notified goods requires evidence; mere foreign-origin claims cannot justify confiscation or penalty.

For non-notified goods, a bare assertion of foreign origin is insufficient to establish smuggling; the Revenue must adduce evidence showing the tainted character of the goods or otherwise discharge its burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. On the facts discussed, onion and groundnuts were seized without evidence proving that they were smuggled, so confiscation and penalty were not legally sustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of onion and groundnuts and the penalty imposed on the appellant were sustainable in the absence of evidence showing that the goods were smuggled and in view of the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods seized were non-notified goods. In such cases, mere assertion that the goods were of foreign origin was insufficient to establish smuggling. The Revenue had adduced no evidence to show the tainted character of the onion and groundnuts or to discharge the burden of proving that they were smuggled.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not justified and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---