Burden of proving smuggling bars confiscation of non-notified goods when Revenue leads no supporting evidence.

Confiscation of non-notified goods under the Customs Act could not be sustained where the Revenue failed to prove that the goods were smuggled. The burden did not shift to the importer merely because the goods were purchased through a broker without documents, as Section 123 and Chapter IVA applied only where the statutory conditions for smuggled goods were established. On the record, there was no material showing smuggling, so the confiscation had no legal foundation and the consequential penalty also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the goods and the consequential penalty could be sustained when the goods were non-notified and the Revenue failed to prove that they were smuggled.

Analysis: The goods were treated as non-notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962. In such a case, the burden to establish smuggled character did not shift to the importer merely because the goods were purchased through a broker without documents. The appellant's reliance on the legal position that the Revenue had to prove smuggling was not a change of stand. As there was nothing on record to show that the goods were smuggled, the confiscation lacked foundation.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---