Burden of proof in smuggling cases protects non-notified goods from confiscation absent evidence of illicit import.

Cell phones were not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, so the burden remained on Revenue to prove smuggling. In the absence of evidence showing illicit import, and in light of the admitted purchase of the goods from Chennai, confiscation and enhanced penalty could not be sustained. The order permitting release on redemption fine with a reduced penalty was therefore upheld, and the appeals were dismissed in favour of the respondent.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the cell phones and imposition of penalty were justified when the goods were not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act and there was no evidence to establish smuggling.

Analysis: Cell phones were not notified goods under Section 123, so the burden remained on Revenue to prove that the goods were smuggled into India. In the absence of such evidence, and in view of the admitted purchase of the goods from Chennai, the confiscation and enhanced penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appeals were liable to be dismissed and the order granting release on redemption fine with reduced penalty was sustained in favour of the respondent.

---