No reverse burden for mobile phones not notified under customs law; penalty for alleged smuggled goods was set aside.

Penalty for alleged dealing in smuggled mobile phones was unsustainable because the record did not establish illegal import or conscious dealing in smuggled goods. The trader had bought the phones from shops at a port town and transported them inland for sale, but there was no proof that he had imported them unlawfully or knew they were smuggled. As mobile phones were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, no reverse burden to prove licit import arose. The order setting aside the penalty was therefore upheld against the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed on the trader for alleged dealing in smuggled mobile phones was sustainable in the absence of proof of illegal import or conscious dealing with smuggled goods.

Analysis: The respondent was a trader who had purchased the mobile phones from shops at a port town and brought them to an interior place for sale. The record did not show that he had illegally imported the goods or knowingly dealt in smuggled goods. Mobile phones were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, so no reverse burden to prove licit import arose against the respondent.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the order setting it aside was upheld against the Revenue.

---