Burden of proof for seized gold coins under customs law requires a reasonable basis before shifting onus to the respondent.

Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked merely because foreign-marked gold coins were recovered from a locker; the department had to first establish a reasonable basis for treating the coins as smuggled and for shifting the burden to the respondent. The tribunal noted that the surrounding circumstances did not show meaningful customs enquiry or investigation before proceeding, and the explanation that the coins were received as gifts was not inherently incredible. The identical appearance of the coins also did not, by itself, discredit that explanation. The benefit of doubt granted by the appellate authority was therefore upheld and confiscation was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized foreign-marked gold coins were liable to confiscation by shifting the burden on the respondent under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the benefit of doubt granted by the appellate authority was sustainable.

Analysis: The seizure arose from gold coins recovered from the respondent's locker. The tribunal noted that the department had to establish the basis for applying the statutory burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The surrounding circumstances did not show a sufficient reasonable belief to treat the coins as smuggled or to shift the onus, particularly when the goods had first been seized by income-tax authorities and the record did not show any meaningful enquiry or investigation by customs before proceeding. The explanation that the coins were received as gifts was not rejected on the ground that it was inherently incredible. The tribunal also accepted that the mere identical appearance of the coins did not by itself discredit the explanation, since genuine coins would ordinarily be similar in form.

Conclusion: The benefit of doubt granted by the appellate authority was upheld and confiscation was not justified.

---