Statutory burden for seized gold under customs law requires corroborated proof; unsupported explanations will not rebut smuggling presumption.

Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the person from whose possession foreign-marked gold is seized must rebut the statutory presumption with convincing, corroborated evidence of lawful source. Unsupported statements, an un-retracted Section 108 statement, and an insufficient affidavit were held inadequate to displace that burden, so the gold was treated as smuggled and liable to confiscation. The jeep used for transport was also confiscable, the principal dealer's penalty was sustained, the other main participant's penalty was reduced, and the penalties on the two transporters, along with the confiscation of shoes and socks, were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants discharged the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act to establish that the seized foreign marked gold biscuits were not smuggled and were lawfully accounted for; (ii) whether the confiscation of the gold and jeep and the penalties imposed on the appellants, including the ancillary confiscation of shoes and socks, were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants discharged the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act to establish that the seized foreign marked gold biscuits were not smuggled and were lawfully accounted for.

Analysis: The gold was seized from the possession of the transporters on the basis of reasonable belief that it was smuggled. Their statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were not retracted at the earliest opportunity before the Magistrate and there was no satisfactory independent corroboration of the alleged delivery challan, purchase and return transaction, or the explanation regarding differing markings on the biscuits. The affidavit produced in support of the claimed lawful source was found insufficient to explain the discrepancy in markings or to displace the statutory burden.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to discharge the burden under Section 123, and the gold was held to be smuggled and liable to confiscation.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation of the gold and jeep and the penalties imposed on the appellants, including the ancillary confiscation of shoes and socks, were sustainable.

Analysis: Once the gold was held to be smuggled, confiscation of the gold was upheld. The jeep used to transport the smuggled gold was also held liable to confiscation under the relevant confiscatory provision. The penalty on the principal dealer was sustained, while the penalty on the other main participant was reduced. No sufficient material was found to sustain penalties on the two transporters, whose role was limited to carriage on behalf of their employer. Consequential confiscation of shoes and socks was also vacated.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the gold and jeep was sustained, the penalty on the principal dealer was upheld, the penalty on the other main participant was reduced, and the penalties on the two transporters and the confiscation of shoes and socks were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The decision substantially affirmed the smuggling allegation and confiscatory action, but granted partial relief by deleting the penalties on the two transporters and vacating the ancillary confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 123 of the Customs Act, once gold is seized under a reasonable belief of smuggling, the person from whose possession it is seized must produce convincing and corroborated evidence to rebut the statutory presumption; unsupported explanations and inadequately corroborated affidavits are insufficient to displace that burden.

---