Mere foreign origin is insufficient to justify confiscation of non-notified goods without proof of smuggling.

For non-notified goods, confiscation cannot rest on mere foreign origin alone; customs authorities must affirmatively prove smuggled nature with positive, tangible, or investigative evidence. Where the department fails to discharge that burden, the special burden-shifting regime does not apply and confiscation is unsustainable. Binding departmental instructions issued after denotification also support the requirement that the revenue establish illicit import or other violation of law before invoking confiscation powers.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of non-notified goods was sustainable when the department failed to prove that the goods were smuggled and the burden of proof lay on the revenue.

Analysis: The goods were treated as non-notified and, therefore, outside the special burden-shifting regime. Mere foreign origin did not establish smuggling. In the absence of any positive, tangible, or investigative evidence showing illicit import or violation of law, the department failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. The binding departmental instructions issued after denotification also supported the position that the customs authorities had to prove the smuggled nature of such goods.

Conclusion: Confiscation was not justified and the revenue's appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order setting aside confiscation was upheld because the department did not prove that the goods were smuggled.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, mere foreign origin is insufficient to justify confiscation; the customs authorities must affirmatively prove smuggled nature by evidence.

---