Reverse burden for notified gold sustained confiscation and penalties where lawful acquisition was not proved.

Confiscation of foreign-origin gold and personal penalties were sustained because gold is a notified item and the reverse burden under Section 123 shifted to the persons from whose possession it was recovered to prove lawful acquisition and that it was not smuggled. The appellants failed to produce documentary or other reliable evidence of legal import, lawful possession, or discharge of the burden. One appellant's statements admitted ownership, and the record indicated acquisition through a local broker without supporting documents. The claim that gold is freely importable did not assist them on these facts, and the confiscation and penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of foreign-origin gold and the personal penalties were sustainable in view of the reverse burden under Section 123 and the appellants' failure to prove lawful acquisition.

Analysis: The gold was recovered from the possession of one appellant and its foreign origin was not disputed. The other appellant admitted ownership in his statements. Gold being a notified item, the burden shifted to the persons from whose possession it was recovered to prove that it was not smuggled and had been lawfully acquired. No documentary or other reliable evidence was produced to show legal import or lawful possession. The claim that gold is freely importable did not assist the appellants, since the material recovery was of gold allegedly held without proof that the duty burden had been discharged. The statements also indicated acquisition from a local broker without legal documents.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were upheld and the appeals were rejected.

---