Non-notified goods and import discrepancies: minor document errors do not prove illegal import without cogent evidence.

Minor discrepancies in chassis particulars did not invalidate the import where the engine number and other essential identifiers matched the bill of entry, and the documents were not shown to be forged. The article states that such clerical or assessment-stage errors were irrelevant to the legality of import, so confiscation on that ground was unsustainable. For non-notified goods, the burden remained on the department to prove illegal import with cogent evidence; mere suspicion or foreign appearance was insufficient. On the facts described, no illicit import or breach of the no-sale condition was established, and confiscation could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the motor cycle was legally imported under the bill of entry and liable to confiscation on the alleged discrepancy in chassis and engine particulars. (ii) Whether, in respect of non-notified goods, the burden to prove illegal import lay on the department and whether the no-sale condition was violated.

Issue (i): The dispute centered on whether omission of the prefix in the chassis number and variations in the documents could invalidate the import. The engine number and other essential particulars matched the bill of entry, and the discrepancies were treated as insignificant and attributable to clerical or assessment-stage errors. The import documents were not found to be forged, and the mismatches in the registration certificate or related papers were held irrelevant to the legality of the import.

Conclusion: The motor cycle was held to have been legally imported on payment of appropriate duty, and confiscation on this ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): For non-notified goods, the department was required to prove illegal import, and mere suspicion or foreign appearance was insufficient. The department failed to adduce evidence establishing illicit import. The record also showed that the motor cycle remained in the name of the importer, with no proof of sale consideration or transfer, so the no-sale condition was not breached.

Conclusion: The burden of proof remained on the department and was not discharged, and the no-sale condition was not violated.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the confiscatory order was set aside to the extent challenged, with the appellant obtaining relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving non-notified goods, confiscation cannot be sustained unless the department proves illegal import with cogent evidence, and minor documentary discrepancies that do not affect the essential identity of the goods do not by themselves establish illicit import.

---