Burden of proof in customs confiscation of non-notified goods rests on Revenue, not on the importer's missing documents.

For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, confiscation as smuggled goods cannot be sustained merely because the importer cannot produce item-wise matching documents. The burden remains on Revenue to prove the contraband character of the goods with supporting evidence, especially where the record does not show country of origin or other material indicating smuggling. Baggage receipts issued by customs officers cannot, by themselves, be used against the importer for lack of detailed description. On these facts, the confiscation order was held unsustainable and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absolute confiscation of the seized goods as smuggled was sustainable when the goods were non-notified and the Revenue had not adduced evidence to establish their contraband nature.

Analysis: The goods were treated as smuggled merely because the appellant could not produce documents correlating each item to the seizure description. As the goods were non-notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden remained on the Revenue to establish that they were smuggled. The absence of detailed description in the baggage receipts could not be held against the appellant when the receipts had been issued by the customs officer. The record also did not show any country of origin or other material evidence to prove the contraband character of the goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, confiscation as smuggled cannot rest on the importer's inability to produce documents alone; the Revenue must prove the contraband nature of the goods with supporting evidence.

---