Circumstantial evidence and corroborated retracted confessions can prove smuggling of non-notified goods under customs law.

For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, the Department bears the initial burden of proving smuggling, but it may discharge that burden through cogent circumstantial evidence where the relevant facts lie within the special knowledge of the person concerned. Unexplained possession of large quantities of diamonds, absence of vouchers and accounts, stock-book discrepancies, recovery of loose chits, and inability to explain the source of the goods were treated as sufficient corroborative material. Retracted confessional statements were not rejected because they were supported by independent evidence and the surrounding circumstances. On that basis, the confiscation and penalty findings were sustained and no writ interference was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department had discharged the burden of proving that the seized diamonds were smuggled goods and whether the confiscation and penalty orders, based on the surrounding circumstances and the retracted confessional statements, called for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Diamonds were not goods to which the reverse burden under the Customs Act applied by notification, so the initial burden lay on the Department. Even so, the Department was not required to prove the impossible; slight evidence could suffice where the relevant facts were within the special knowledge of the persons concerned. The unexplained possession of large quantities of diamonds, absence of supporting vouchers and accounts, discrepancies in stock and books, recovery of loose chits, and the inability to explain the source of the goods provided sufficient circumstantial evidence. The retracted statements were considered along with the surrounding circumstances and were found to be corroborated by independent material, so they were not rejected as involuntary or unreliable.

Conclusion: The Department's case was proved to the required extent, the retracted confessions were admissible with corroboration, and the concurrent findings sustaining confiscation and penalty did not warrant interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases concerning non-notified goods, the Department must prove smuggling with cogent circumstantial evidence, but facts within the special knowledge of the person proceeded against may justify an adverse inference, and a retracted confession may be relied upon if substantially corroborated by independent evidence.

---