Confiscation of prohibited imported goods upheld where statutory prohibition, reasonable belief of smuggling, and customs presumption were established.

Imported goods are liable to confiscation when importation contravenes a statutory prohibition, regardless of whether the possessor was personally involved in importation. A 1948 gold-import prohibition, read with the customs deeming provisions, brought the goods within the confiscation framework under customs law. The enquiry was not vitiated by denial of cross-examination because the disputed witness was present without cross-examination and the remaining statements related to a point later abandoned, so no breach of natural justice arose. Seizure was also supported by reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled, allowing the statutory presumption to operate. The confiscation was sustained on all grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether gold imported contrary to the statutory prohibition and seized under the Sea Customs Act was liable to confiscation even though the appellant was not found concerned in its importation; (ii) whether the 1948 notification under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with the Sea Customs Act, attracted confiscation under Section 167(8); (iii) whether the enquiry before the Collector was vitiated for denial of fair opportunity of cross-examination; and (iv) whether the seizure was made on a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled so as to attract Section 178A.

Issue (i): Whether gold imported contrary to the statutory prohibition and seized under the Sea Customs Act was liable to confiscation even though the appellant was not found concerned in its importation.

Analysis: Section 167(8) makes imported goods liable to confiscation when importation is contrary to a prohibition or restriction imposed by law. The liability of the goods to confiscation depends on the prohibited importation itself and not on proof that the possessor was personally concerned in the act of importation. Once the statutory prohibition and the unlawful import are established, confiscation follows.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation notwithstanding the finding that the appellant was not shown to be concerned in the importation.

Issue (ii): Whether the 1948 notification under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with the Sea Customs Act, attracted confiscation under Section 167(8).

Analysis: The notification prohibited bringing gold into India except with the requisite permission. Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 deemed the restrictions under Section 8 to be imposed under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, with the result that contravention of the notification attracted the customs consequences under that Act. On that footing, seizure, presumption and confiscation were all available under the customs law framework.

Conclusion: The notification and the statutory cross-linking provisions brought the case within Section 167(8), so confiscation was justified.

Issue (iii): Whether the enquiry before the Collector was vitiated for denial of fair opportunity of cross-examination.

Analysis: The complaint regarding one witness was not available because the record showed that the witness was examined in the presence of counsel and no cross-examination was then undertaken. As to the other two witnesses, their statements related to a factual stand later abandoned by the appellant, so no useful purpose would have been served by insisting on cross-examination on that aspect. The procedure adopted did not amount to unfairness or breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The enquiry was not vitiated by denial of cross-examination or by breach of natural justice.

Issue (iv): Whether the seizure was made on a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled so as to attract Section 178A.

Analysis: The quantity of gold, the surrounding suspicious circumstances of travel, the absence of a ticket, and the prior information received by the officer furnished objective grounds for a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled. The existence of reasonable belief is tested on prima facie grounds and not by appellate reappraisal of the officer's subjective satisfaction. The statutory condition for raising the presumption was therefore satisfied.

Conclusion: The seizure was effected on a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled, and the presumption under Section 178A was rightly raised.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation failed on all substantive grounds, and the order of confiscation was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import of goods contravenes a statutory prohibition that is deemed to operate under the customs law, the goods become liable to confiscation irrespective of the possessor's personal involvement in importation; and once seizure is made on a reasonable belief of smuggled character, the statutory burden shifts to the possessor to rebut that presumption.

---