Circumstantial evidence can prove smuggled import for non-notified goods when Section 123 does not apply; confiscation was upheld.

For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, the Department retained the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggled import because the statutory presumption under Section 123 did not apply. That burden was held capable of being discharged through cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's inculpatory statement, the statement of the Sri Lankan national, attempted dispatch of part of the consignment under a fictitious description, and a false explanation about purchase through an intermediary. The retraction of the confession was given little weight in the absence of a prompt complaint before the Magistrate and in view of the surrounding circumstances. The goods were found liable to confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were sustained, subject to reduction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in respect of non-notified goods under the Customs Act, the Department discharged the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggled nature, and whether the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were not covered by the statutory presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, so the burden remained on the Department to prove smuggled import. That burden, however, could be discharged by circumstances. The statement of the Sri Lankan national, the appellant's own inculpatory statement, the attempted despatch of part of the consignment under a fictitious description, and the falsity of the appellant's explanation regarding purchase through an intermediary together formed a chain of evidence showing illicit import. The retraction of the appellant's confession was not given much weight in the absence of a prompt complaint before the Magistrate and in light of the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The Department proved that the goods were smuggled and liable to confiscation; the order of confiscation was upheld. The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of the redemption fine and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not apply, the burden of proving smuggled import may be discharged by cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the accused's own statement, corroborative statements, false explanation, and conduct showing concealment or fictitious description.

---