Ownership claim over seized betelnuts required corroborative evidence and fresh adjudication, with a proper hearing before confiscation.

The confiscation of seized betelnuts and rejection of the appellant's ownership claim could not rest solely on the inability to trace the consignor or the absence of a full address. As the appellant had produced a railway receipt and no rival claimant had appeared, ownership had to be examined on corroborative evidence and after giving the appellant a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal therefore remanded the matter for fresh adjudication and directed a speaking order on the ownership issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation order in respect of the seized betelnuts and the rejection of the appellant's ownership claim required reconsideration on the basis of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The appellant produced a railway receipt and no rival claimant came forward. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim mainly because the consignor could not be traced and the full address was unavailable. The Tribunal held that the claim should not have been rejected on that ground alone and that the ownership issue had to be verified on the basis of corroborative evidence to be produced by the appellant, with an opportunity of hearing and proper adjudication.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration and a speaking order after giving the appellant an opportunity to establish ownership.

---