Burden of proof in confiscation of foreign-origin goods may be met by suspicious circumstances and inconsistent purchase explanations.

In confiscation of restricted foreign-origin goods, the customs burden of proof may be discharged without direct evidence by relying on surrounding circumstances, contradictory explanations, the suspicious character of the transaction, and other conduct indicating unlawful acquisition. The court noted that changing versions of the purchase story, the non-existence of the alleged seller firm, and suspicious bills and transaction details were sufficient to support the inference that the goods were not lawfully acquired in the ordinary course of business. On that basis, the burden was treated as discharged and confiscation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs authorities had discharged the burden of proof to justify confiscation of the seized foreign-origin goods under Sec. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.

Analysis: In cases involving restricted foreign-origin goods, the burden may be discharged without direct evidence. It can be proved by surrounding circumstances, contradictory statements made by the possessor, the suspicious character of the transaction, the improbability of the explanation offered, and other conduct bearing on the nature of the goods. On the facts, the changing versions of the purchase story, the non-existence of the alleged seller firm, and the suspicious nature of the bills and transaction were sufficient to support the inference that the goods were not lawfully acquired in the ordinary course of business.

Conclusion: The burden of proof was discharged, and the confiscation was upheld against the petitioner.

---