Burden of proving smuggled origin remains on Customs where goods are not notified and lawful trade is possible.

Ball bearings not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act required the Revenue to first prove that they were smuggled goods before any burden could shift to the person in possession. Mere absence of bills, or inability to identify the seller or broker, was insufficient to establish illicit import. Suspicion from surrounding circumstances could not replace proof. On that reasoning, the Revenue failed to discharge the initial burden, and confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether ball bearings seized from the appellant's premises were liable to confiscation and penalty on the ground that they were smuggled goods, and whether the Revenue had discharged the initial burden of proving their smuggled nature.

Analysis: The ball bearings were not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act, so the burden initially lay on the Revenue to establish that the goods were of smuggled origin. Mere absence of bills or inability to identify the seller or broker was held insufficient to prove illicit import. Suspicion, even if arising from surrounding circumstances, could not substitute proof. The reasoning followed the principle that where goods are not notified and are otherwise capable of lawful trade, the Customs authorities must prove the ingredients of the alleged offence before the burden can shift to the person in possession.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove that the ball bearings were smuggled goods, so confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.

---