Burden of proof in customs confiscation requires proof of illicit importation unless a statutory presumption applies.

In confiscation proceedings under the Sea Customs Act, where Section 178A did not apply to the seized dye-stuffs, the ordinary burden remained on the customs authorities to prove illicit importation under Section 167(8). Mere foreign manufacture of the goods, or their presence in the petitioner's possession, was insufficient to shift the burden to the petitioner. Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to displace the prosecution's general burden where the facts of importation were not specially within the petitioner's knowledge. The theory that confiscation could proceed against offending goods without proof of unlawful importation was rejected. The order of confiscation was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings for confiscation of goods under the Sea Customs Act, the burden lay on the customs authorities to prove illicit importation when Section 178A was inapplicable, and whether confiscation could be sustained merely because the goods were of foreign manufacture and were found in the petitioner's possession.

Analysis: The goods had been seized by the police and later made over to the customs authorities. Section 178A, which reverses the burden of proof in respect of notified goods seized under the Act, did not apply to the seized dye-stuffs. In the absence of that statutory presumption, the ordinary rule governed the proceeding: the customs authorities had to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 167(8), namely, that the goods had been imported contrary to the prohibition or restriction in force. Mere foreign origin of the goods, or their presence in the petitioner's possession, was not enough to shift the burden to the petitioner. The principle of Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to displace the general burden resting on the prosecution, especially where the facts of importation were not shown to be specially within the petitioner's knowledge. The theory that confiscation could proceed against "offending goods" without proof of unlawful importation was rejected, except where a valid statutory presumption such as Section 178A applied.

Conclusion: The customs authorities failed to prove illicit importation, and the order of confiscation could not stand.

---