Non-notified customs goods require proof of smuggled character; a prior baggage receipt can rebut confiscation allegations.

For a non-notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove that the seized goods were smuggled, and confiscation could not be upheld on mere allegation. A baggage receipt in the appellant's name, issued before the seizure and recording import of miscellaneous goods on payment of duty, was accepted as supporting lawful import. The absence of the exact description "Image Clock" in the receipt was not treated as adverse because the receipt was not limited to that item. On that basis, confiscation and personal penalty were set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the goods and the personal penalty could be sustained when the seized article was a non-notified item and the Revenue had not established its smuggled character.

Analysis: The goods in question were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore the burden remained on the Revenue to prove that they were smuggled. The appellant produced a baggage receipt in his own name predating the seizure, showing import of miscellaneous goods on payment of duty. The absence of the specific description "Image Clock" in the baggage receipt was not treated as adverse, since the receipt mentioned miscellaneous goods and the evidence did not establish any smuggled origin of the seized clocks.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For a non-notified item, confiscation cannot be sustained unless the Revenue proves its smuggled character; a prior baggage receipt showing lawful import may rebut the allegation of smuggling.

---