Customs confiscation of non-notified goods fails where smuggled origin is not proved and suspicion alone is insufficient.

Confiscation of non-notified abrasive belts under the Customs Act could not be sustained because the special burden-shifting rule for notified goods did not apply. In the absence of material proving smuggled origin, the Revenue could not rely on suspicion or on the appellant's inability to produce later documents. The explanation that the goods were bought from a broker was treated as a consistent factual account, not a change of stand. The confiscation and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of non-notified abrasive belts was sustainable when the goods were not covered by the statutory burden-shifting provision and the record did not establish their smuggled nature.

Analysis: The goods were treated as non-notified items under the Customs Act, so the special evidentiary burden applicable to notified goods was not available to the Revenue. The appellant's explanation that the belts were purchased from a broker and that documents could not later be obtained was not a change of stand but a consistent factual explanation followed by a legal contention on burden of proof. In the absence of material showing smuggled origin, confiscation could not be sustained merely on suspicion or on the basis that the appellant was unable to produce documents.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, confiscation cannot rest on suspicion alone, and the Revenue must establish smuggled nature before confiscation can be sustained.

---