Smuggled Nature Must Be Proved by Cogent Evidence; absence of MRP stickers alone cannot justify confiscation of imported goods.

For non-notified imported goods, the Revenue must prove smuggled nature with cogent evidence, and the mere absence of MRP stickers is insufficient to sustain confiscation. Where invoices and bills of entry showed lawful import and purchase, and no other reliable evidence established that the seized pen cells and button cells were different from the imported goods, the finding of smuggling could not stand. Confiscation based only on non-affixation of MRP stickers was therefore unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported pen cells and button cells was sustainable merely because the packages did not bear MRP stickers, and whether such absence by itself established that the goods were smuggled into India.

Analysis: The appellant produced invoices and bills of entry showing lawful import and purchase of the goods. The goods were non-notified and in the ordinary import channel, so the burden lay on the Revenue to prove smuggled nature. The absence of MRP stickers, without any other cogent evidence, was held insufficient to conclude that the seized goods were different from the imported goods or that they were smuggled. The confiscation was based only on non-affixation of MRP stickers, which did not support the finding of smuggling.

Conclusion: The confiscation was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, smuggled nature must be proved by the Revenue with cogent evidence, and absence of MRP stickers alone is not enough to justify confiscation.

---