Circumstantial evidence and statutory presumption sustained confiscation and penalty for concealed silver alleged to be illegally imported.

Concealment of silver in specially made jacket pouches, interception on smuggling intelligence, and an inherently improbable explanation were treated as sufficient circumstantial evidence to support illegal import in respect of unnotified goods. The department was not required to produce direct proof of import where the surrounding facts discharged the initial burden and attracted the statutory presumption. The appellant's shifting versions, rejected claim of coercion in recording the statement, and disbelieved affidavit failed to rebut that inference. The objection that the silversmiths were not cross-examined was not accepted, and their opinion was treated as corroborative rather than conclusive. Confiscation and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the silver and the penalty imposed under the customs law were sustainable on the basis of the surrounding circumstances and whether the appellant's explanation, denial of the recorded statement, and plea of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the silversmiths displaced the department's case.

Analysis: The silver was found concealed in specially made jacket pouches, the appellant was intercepted on intelligence that silver was being smuggled from Bangladesh, and his contemporaneous explanation that he had purchased the silver from an unknown person and would later pay the price was found inherently improbable. The department had no direct proof of import, but in cases of unnotified goods the initial burden may be discharged by cogent circumstantial evidence. The appellant's version changed at different stages, his plea of coercion in recording the statement was rejected, and the alleged affidavit was disbelieved. The objection regarding cross-examination of the silversmiths was not accepted, and their opinion, though not conclusive by itself, supported the inference from the surrounding facts. The circumstances were held sufficient to attract the statutory presumption that the silver had been illegally imported, and the appellant failed to rebut that inference.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld and the appeal failed.

---