Police seizure followed by customs handover does not create fresh seizure or shift the burden of proving smuggling.

Where goods were first seized by police and later handed over to Customs, no fresh seizure arose under customs law for shifting the burden of proving smuggling. The police seizure divested the possessor of custody, and transfer of that custody to Customs did not revive a burden-shifting presumption. Because the goods were non-notified, available in the market, and the respondent claimed purchase from another person, the revenue could not rely on the burden rule. The Tribunal's setting aside of confiscation and penalty was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods first seized by the police and thereafter handed over to Customs amounted to a fresh seizure under the customs law so as to attract the burden of proof against the person from whom the goods were recovered.

Analysis: The goods were initially taken into police custody, and once that occurred, possession of the goods stood divested from the occupant. On the facts found, the goods were non-notified and freely available in the market, and the respondent had claimed purchase from another person. Applying the principle that a police seizure is a deprivation of possession and that transfer of such custody to Customs does not amount to a fresh seizure, the burden-shifting rule relied upon by the revenue was not attracted.

Conclusion: The burden to prove smuggling did not shift to the respondent, and the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the confiscation and penalty.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are already seized by the police and thereafter handed over to Customs, there is no fresh seizure under the customs law for the purpose of shifting the burden of proving smuggling to the possessor.

---