Burden-shifting presumption under customs law applies only to goods seized under the same Act, not after police seizure and transfer

Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act applied only where goods were seized under that Act itself. Gold first seized by police under a different law and later handed to Customs under Section 180 was not seized afresh under the Sea Customs Act, because the statutory requirement was a taking of possession by Customs under the Act from the person then in possession. The burden-shifting presumption therefore could not be invoked, and the burden of proving that the gold was not smuggled did not pass to the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether gold delivered to the Customs authorities under Section 180 of the Sea Customs Act could be treated as goods seized under the Act so as to attract the burden-shifting rule in Section 178A.

Analysis: The operative premise of Section 178A was a seizure under the Act. Goods originally seized by the police under a different law and later conveyed to the Customs authorities under Section 180 were not seized afresh under the Sea Customs Act. The provision contemplated a taking of possession by authority under the Act from the person in possession, and that requirement was not satisfied when the goods had already passed from the accused to the police and then to the Customs authorities. The statutory burden could not, therefore, be placed on the accused on the basis of Section 178A.

Conclusion: Section 178A did not apply, and the burden of proving that the gold was not smuggled could not be shifted to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory presumption shifting the burden of proof applies only where the goods are seized under the very Act that creates the presumption; delivery of goods to Customs under a separate procedural provision after police seizure is not a seizure under that Act.

---