Customs confiscation and penalty fail where no substantive evidence links the person to alleged smuggling activity.

Confiscation and personal penalty under the Customs Act were found unsustainable where the record did not establish a sufficient nexus between the appellant and the seized Pashmina shawls or the alleged smuggling activity. The case rested largely on presumptive allegations and a visiting card, but no substantive evidence linked the appellant to illicit importation. For the goods seized from his premises, most items were explained as legally imported and only a limited portion was treated as liable to confiscation. On that evidentiary basis, the required link for confiscation and penalty was not proved, and both were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the miscellaneous foreign-origin goods and the penalty imposed under the Customs Act on the appellant were sustainable in the absence of evidence linking him to the seized Pashmina shawls and the alleged smuggling activity.

Analysis: The appellant was implicated mainly on presumptive allegations and the recovery of a visiting card, but no substantive evidence connected him with the seized Pashmina shawls at Barhni or established his involvement in their illicit importation. As regards the goods seized from his premises, the record showed that almost all were explained as legally imported goods, and only a small portion had been treated as liable to confiscation. On the evidence adduced, the linkage necessary to sustain confiscation and personal penalty was not made out.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the miscellaneous foreign-origin goods and the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---