Bill of lading presumption upheld: ante-dating and confiscation cannot rest on conjecture without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

A bill of lading entry carries a presumption of correctness and can be treated as ante-dated only on acceptable evidence, not on surmise or conjecture. Where the allegation of ante-dating is unsupported by cogent material, an inference that a different commodity should have been imported cannot be drawn by speculation. In quasi-criminal confiscation and penalty proceedings, the charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; failing that, confiscation and penalty are not sustainable. On the material recorded, ante-dating was not proved, the goods were not liable to confiscation, and the penalty could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bill of lading could be held to have been ante-dated on the basis of the material on record, and whether the goods were liable to confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The record contained no acceptable evidence to displace the presumption attached to the entry in the bill of lading. The finding of ante-dating could not be based on surmises or conjectures, and the suggested inference that the import should have been of a different commodity rested on mere speculation. As penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the allegations had to be established with cogent evidence and beyond reasonable doubt, which was not done.

Conclusion: The finding that the bill of lading was ante-dated was not proved, the goods were not liable to confiscation, and the imposition of penalty was unsustainable. The appeals were dismissed, leaving the decision in favour of the assessee undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A presumption arising from an entry in a bill of lading can be displaced only by acceptable evidence, and confiscation or penalty cannot be sustained on conjecture where the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt in quasi-criminal proceedings.

---