Burden of proof in customs confiscation cannot rest on possession alone; Customs must prove illicit import.

In proceedings under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, the statutory burden remained on Customs because the goods were not within Section 178-A. A possessor's inability to give a satisfactory explanation, or the Collector's disbelief of that explanation, could not substitute for affirmative proof that the goods were illicitly imported. Mere suspicion was insufficient to sustain confiscation or penalty. The merger objection also failed because the earlier appeal was not entertained on merits and was rejected for non-compliance with statutory conditions. The confiscation and penalty were therefore unsustainable, as the burden of proof had been wrongly cast on the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, the burden could be cast on a person in possession of restricted goods to prove licit origin and, on failure, confiscation and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The goods were not of a class covered by Section 178-A, and therefore the statutory onus to prove the ingredients of the offence rested on the Customs authorities. The inability of the possessor to give a satisfactory explanation, or the Collector's disbelief of that explanation, could not replace affirmative evidence that the goods were in fact illicitly imported. Mere suspicion or failure to substantiate a defence was insufficient to discharge the burden required by law. The objection based on merger also failed because the appeal was not entertained on merits and was rejected for non-compliance with statutory conditions.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty could not be sustained, as the burden of proof had been wrongly cast on the petitioner.

---