Reasonable belief in customs seizure and additional evidence in appeal can sustain smuggling presumptions and substantive justice.

Reasonable belief based on prior information, the manner of concealment and a goldsmith's opinion was sufficient to justify seizure of the gold article as smuggled goods, and the statutory presumption under customs law could operate. The court should not substitute its own view for the seizing officer's prima facie assessment on reasonable belief. Under Section 391 CrPC, additional evidence may be received in appeal where the defect is only formal and admission would advance substantive justice; refusal to permit proof of the Mint Master's report was therefore unjustified. The matter was remitted for further proceedings after allowing proof of that report.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the customs officer had reasonable belief to seize the gold article as smuggled goods so as to attract the statutory presumption and burden of proof under the customs law; (ii) Whether additional evidence could be allowed in appeal to formally prove the Mint Master's report under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the customs officer had reasonable belief to seize the gold article as smuggled goods so as to attract the statutory presumption and burden of proof under the customs law.

Analysis: The seizure was supported by prior information, the unusual conduct of concealing pure gold under a silver-like appearance by coating it with mercury, and the goldsmith's opinion that the article was pure gold. The existence of such prima facie circumstances was enough to justify the officer's belief. The court was not required to substitute its own view for that of the seizing officer on the question of reasonable belief, and the statutory presumption as to smuggled goods could therefore operate.

Conclusion: The finding that reasonable belief was absent was unsustainable, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether additional evidence could be allowed in appeal to formally prove the Mint Master's report under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The report of the Mint Master was already on record, and the defect was only formal proof. The lapse of time by itself was not a sufficient reason to refuse additional evidence where its reception would advance the interests of justice. Section 391 empowered the appellate court to take additional evidence where necessary, and the refusal to exercise that power in the circumstances was unjustified.

Conclusion: The prayer for additional evidence ought to have been allowed, and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for further proceedings after permitting proof of the Mint Master's report.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prima facie circumstances reasonably justify a customs officer's belief that goods are smuggled, the court should not reappraise that belief as an appellate fact-finding authority; and where a defect is merely formal, appellate powers to receive additional evidence should be exercised to secure substantive justice.

---