Burden of proof in customs confiscation: department must prove illicit import by affirmative evidence before penalty can stand.

In customs confiscation proceedings of penal character, the department must affirmatively prove by satisfactory evidence that the seized goods were imported in violation of the relevant import restriction; mere disbelief of the purchaser's explanation or absence of proof of lawful purchase is insufficient. The authorities also cannot rely on section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden where no evidence shows when the goods were manufactured or imported. On the facts, the customs authorities failed to discharge that burden, so the confiscation order and penalty could not be sustained and the seized properties were directed to be released with consequential refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authorities discharged the burden of proving that the seized goods had been imported in contravention of the import restrictions so as to justify confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: Proceedings under the Sea Customs Act and the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 are penal in character, and the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence require the customs authorities to bring home the offence by satisfactory evidence. It is not enough for the department to reject the purchaser's explanation or to disbelieve a claim of bona fide purchase; the authorities must affirmatively prove that the goods were imported during a period when the relevant prohibition or restriction was in force. On the record, no evidence was led to show when the goods were manufactured or imported, and no adequate basis existed to infer illicit import merely from the appearance of the goods or the absence of proof of lawful purchase. The principle underlying section 106 of the Evidence Act could not shift the burden in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The burden was not discharged by the customs authorities, and the confiscation order and penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The seizure-related confiscation and penalty were set aside, and the confiscated properties were directed to be released with consequential refund of amounts paid.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs confiscation proceedings of penal character, the burden lies on the department to prove by affirmative evidence that the goods were imported in violation of the restriction order; mere failure of the claimant to prove lawful purchase does not establish illicit import.

---