Customs seizure burden of proof applies despite criminal procedure references; fair opportunity to respond satisfies natural justice.

Goods seized by a customs officer acting under the customs law attract the statutory burden-of-proof rule even if the seizure papers incidentally refer to criminal procedure, because the true character of the proceedings remains customs enforcement. The note also states that a later plea of substitution of the seized gold was rejected where custody was continuous, seals remained intact, and the bar descriptions consistently matched the seizure record. On natural justice, it explains that adjudication is fair if the material relied on is supplied for comment and a meaningful opportunity is given to meet it; formal cross-examination is not always required.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the seized gold was goods seized under the Sea Customs Act read with the Land Customs Act so as to attract the burden-of-proof rule under section 178-A; (ii) whether the plea that the gold had been substituted after seizure was made out; and (iii) whether the adjudication violated the principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): whether the seized gold was goods seized under the Sea Customs Act read with the Land Customs Act so as to attract the burden-of-proof rule under section 178-A.

Analysis: Section 178-A applies where goods are seized under the Act in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. The Land Customs Act incorporates relevant provisions of the Sea Customs Act, and the seizure in the present case was effected by a police officer acting as a Land Customs Officer under the statutory notification issued under section 3 of the Land Customs Act. The references to the Criminal Procedure Code in the seizure papers did not alter the true character of the proceedings, which were from the outset under the customs laws and not a criminal prosecution under the ordinary criminal law.

Conclusion: The goods were seized under the customs law, and the burden-of-proof rule was applicable.

Issue (ii): whether the plea that the gold had been substituted after seizure was made out.

Analysis: The record showed continuous custody of the gold after seizure, sealing and deposit in the sub-treasury with intact seals, later transfer under custody, and re-sealing at the relevant stages. The description, number, marks, and weight of the bars consistently matched the seizure list. The plea of substitution was raised belatedly and was unsupported by any credible evidence.

Conclusion: The plea of substitution failed.

Issue (iii): whether the adjudication violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The material relied on by the customs authorities, including the statement of the proprietor of the printing press and the evidence relating to the receipt books, was supplied to the appellant for comments. The law does not require a formal cross-examination in the technical sense in such adjudication proceedings; what is required is a fair opportunity to meet and explain the material used against the person. That opportunity was afforded, and the disallowance of certain questions in cross-examination was justified on the facts.

Conclusion: There was no violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was sustained and the challenge to the customs adjudication failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are seized by a customs officer acting under the customs law, the statutory burden-of-proof provision applies notwithstanding incidental reference to criminal procedure forms, and natural justice is satisfied if the affected party is given a fair opportunity to comment on the material relied upon, even without formal cross-examination.

---