Burden of proof in gold confiscation fails where lawful purchase evidence is unrebutted and the order lacks evidentiary support.

Where gold is seized, the person concerned may rely on purchase bills, stock records and other materials to show lawful possession, and confiscation cannot rest on suspicion alone. Although the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 may apply, the Revenue must still rebut the explanation with cogent evidence of illegal import or smuggling; if it fails to do so, an order unsupported by evidence is vulnerable to interference under Article 226. The Calcutta HC therefore treated the confiscation and penalty as unsustainable and set aside the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of gold biscuits and imposition of penalty could be sustained when the petitioner produced evidence of lawful purchase and the Revenue failed to rebut it, and whether the Tribunal's order was liable to be set aside for being unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: Gold import was free at the relevant time, so the Revenue was required to establish illegal import or smuggling with cogent material before ordering confiscation. The petitioner produced purchase bills, stock records and other material showing lawful possession, but these materials were not dealt with by the Tribunal. Although gold items were seized and the petitioner carried the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Revenue failed to disprove the explanation and evidence placed on record. An order based on no evidence is amenable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable, and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the confiscation order was quashed, and the confiscated gold biscuits were directed to be returned to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the person from whom gold is seized produces material indicating lawful possession and the Revenue fails to rebut it, confiscation cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or a finding unsupported by evidence.

---