Customs presumption on smuggled gold applies only to customs seizure; police seizure first leaves prosecution to prove smuggling.

The Customs Act presumption for smuggled gold arises only when customs authorities seize the goods under the Act from the accused's possession; a police seizure under criminal procedure, followed by later transfer to customs, does not trigger that burden. As a result, the prosecution retained the burden to prove smuggled character. Foreign markings alone were insufficient to establish foreign origin or smuggling, and the reports relied on did not prove the goods were smuggled with legal certainty. The acquittal was therefore upheld because the statutory burden provision was inapplicable and the essential ingredient of smuggled goods was not proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory presumption regarding smuggled gold under the Customs Act arose when the gold was first seized by the police and later handed over to the customs authorities. (ii) Whether the prosecution proved that the gold was smuggled gold and, therefore, that the charge under the Customs Act was established.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory presumption regarding smuggled gold under the Customs Act arose when the gold was first seized by the police and later handed over to the customs authorities.

Analysis: The presumption under the Customs Act operates only when the goods are seized under the Act from the possession of the accused by the customs authorities. Where the police lawfully seize the goods under the criminal procedure law, the accused is divested of possession at that stage. A later handover to the customs authorities and a fresh panchanama of custody do not amount to a fresh seizure under the Customs Act so as to attract the statutory burden.

Conclusion: The presumption did not arise, and the burden did not shift to the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved that the gold was smuggled gold and, therefore, that the charge under the Customs Act was established.

Analysis: In the absence of the statutory presumption, the prosecution had to prove that the gold was smuggled gold. Foreign markings by themselves were treated as insufficient, since such markings are not proof of foreign origin. The remaining material, including the reports relied on, did not establish smuggled character with legal certainty.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove that the gold was smuggled gold, and the acquittal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory burden provision was inapplicable and the essential ingredient of smuggled goods was not proved.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden under the customs presumption provision arises only when goods are seized under the Act from the possession of the accused by customs authorities; goods first seized by the police and later transferred to customs do not attract that presumption.

---