Burden of proof for non-notified goods under customs law requires Revenue evidence of smuggling before confiscation can stand.

For goods not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden remains on the Revenue to prove that they were smuggled into India. In the absence of any documentary or oral evidence establishing smuggling, confiscation of the metal scrap and vehicle could not be sustained. The trade certificate produced by the appellants, showing engagement in metal scrap trading, was not disputed by the Revenue. On that basis, the confiscation was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of metal scrap and the vehicle was sustainable when the goods were alleged to be smuggled, but the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Revenue led no evidence of smuggling.

Analysis: The metal scrap was not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, so the burden lay on the Revenue to establish that the goods had been smuggled into India. No documentary or oral evidence was produced to prove smuggling. The appellants produced a trade certificate showing that they were engaged in trading in metal scrap, and the Revenue did not dispute its veracity, even though it was produced during investigation.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not justified and was set aside; the appeals were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The decision turns on the Revenue's failure to discharge the burden of proving smuggling in respect of non-notified goods, resulting in setting aside of the confiscation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden remains on the Revenue to prove smuggling, and confiscation cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence establishing unlawful import.

---