Burden of proving smuggled nature remains on Revenue for non-notified goods; foreign origin alone is insufficient.

For non-notified goods, Section 123 of the Customs Act did not shift the burden of proof to the person from whom the goods were recovered, so the Revenue had to produce tangible evidence that the goods were smuggled. Foreign origin alone, even with purchases traced to identified persons, was insufficient to establish a tainted or smuggled character. The confiscation therefore could not be sustained because the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in respect of non-notified goods, the burden to establish that the goods were smuggled lay on the Revenue and whether confiscation could be sustained on the basis of foreign origin alone.

Analysis: For non-notified items, Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not shift the burden to the person from whom the goods were recovered. The Revenue was required to adduce tangible evidence showing the tainted or smuggled character of the goods. The material on record showed only that the goods were of foreign origin and that they had been purchased from identified persons. That by itself did not establish that the goods were smuggled.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving smuggled nature, and the confiscation could not be sustained.

---