Customs presumption and conscious possession govern proof where foreign-origin goods are seized from a godown.

A statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act before arraignment as an accused can be treated as an admissible admission of incriminating facts. Where the seized textiles are proved to be of foreign origin and fall within the section 123 notification covering synthetic yarn fabrics, the statutory presumption that they are smuggled operates and the burden shifts to the person from whose possession they were seized to rebut it. Conscious possession or keeping of such goods is sufficient to attract section 135(1)(b)(i), and preservation of a representative sample may be adequate where the entire seized goods are not produced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was in possession of the godown and concerned in keeping or concealing the seized foreign fabrics, whether the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon, whether the presumption under section 123 of the Customs Act applied to the seized goods, and whether the ingredients of offence under section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act were proved.

Analysis: The respondent's statement under section 108 was recorded before he was arraigned as an accused and was admissible as an admission of incriminating facts. The rental arrangement and the respondent's connection with the godown were established by the statement and surrounding circumstances, proving possession and control over the premises. The seized textiles were shown to be of foreign origin, and the notification bringing fabrics made wholly or mainly of synthetic yarn within the scope of section 123 enabled the statutory presumption to operate. The respondent led no evidence to rebut that presumption. Once conscious possession or keeping of smuggled goods was proved, the requisite knowledge or reason to believe for section 135(1)(b)(i) followed, and the non-production of the entire seized goods did not discredit the prosecution where a sample had been preserved and produced.

Conclusion: The ingredients of the offence under section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were proved against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized goods are shown to be of foreign origin and fall within section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden shifts to the person from whose possession they were seized to rebut the presumption that they are smuggled, and conscious possession or keeping of such goods is sufficient to attract section 135(1)(b)(i).

---