Customs confiscation can rest on surrounding circumstances and unexplained possession of foreign-marked gold, despite a technical criminal acquittal.

Customs confiscation may be sustained where gold biscuits with foreign markings are seized and the possessor gives an unsatisfactory explanation, because illicit import and culpable possession can be inferred from surrounding circumstances even if the statutory presumption is not directly invoked. The burden may shift to the person in control of the goods to explain facts especially within his knowledge, and an adverse inference may follow from failure to do so. A criminal acquittal, particularly one based on technical grounds or on non-application of a presumption, does not by itself defeat independent confiscation proceedings when the contraband character of the goods has not been disproved. Confiscation and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in drawing the statutory presumption under the Evidence Act and in treating the criminal acquittal as not determinative of the confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The seizure involved gold biscuits with foreign markings and the explanation offered for possession was found unsatisfactory. The Court applied the principle that, even where the statutory presumption under the customs law is not attracted, the department may succeed by proving circumstances from which a prudent person may infer illicit importation and guilty knowledge. In such cases, the burden of explaining facts especially within the possessor's knowledge can shift to the person concerned, and an adverse inference may arise if no convincing explanation is furnished. The Court also held that an acquittal in the criminal case, particularly one resting on technical grounds or on the non-application of a particular statutory presumption, does not conclude the issue of confiscation when the criminal court has not negatived the contraband character of the goods or the applicability of the evidentiary presumptions.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in upholding confiscation and penalty, and the issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs confiscation matters, illicit import and culpable possession may be inferred from surrounding circumstances and the possessor's unexplained control of goods with foreign markings, and a criminal acquittal on technical grounds does not preclude independent adjudication on confiscation.

---