Retrospective customs presumption upheld where Section 123(1) was treated as procedural and rebuttable, not punitive.

Retrospective application of Section 123(1) of the Customs Act to goods seized before the notification was issued was upheld as a procedural rule. Article 20(1) did not apply because the matter did not involve conviction or punishment for an offence. Under Article 21, the provision was treated as creating only a rebuttable presumption that the goods were smuggled, with an opportunity for the possessor to rebut it, similar to presumptions under the Evidence Act. On that basis, the retrospective operation was not regarded as unfair, unjust, or unreasonable, and the constitutional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retrospective application of Section 123(1) of the Customs Act to goods seized before the notification was issued violated Article 20(1) or Article 21 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The Court held that Article 20(1) was inapplicable because the matter did not concern conviction or punishment for an offence. On Article 21, the Court treated Section 123(1) as laying down a procedural rule. It noted that the provision only raises a rebuttable presumption as to smuggled character of the goods, similar to presumptions recognised under the Evidence Act, and that the person in possession is afforded an opportunity to rebut the presumption. On that basis, retrospective application of the provision was not regarded as unfair, unjust, or unreasonable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the retrospective operation of Section 123(1) failed, and the contention that it violated Articles 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution was rejected.

---