Reasonable belief of smuggled goods justified shifting the burden where circumstances and conduct supported customs seizure.

Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act applies only where seized goods are reasonably believed, on facts and surrounding circumstances, to be smuggled goods. Mere suspicion is insufficient, but prior information is not essential if the conduct of the person concerned and the circumstances of interception support that belief. Here, the petitioner was intercepted while handing over diamonds, a companion returned the packet on seeing customs officers, and no vouchers or reliable evidence of lawful acquisition were produced. The burden therefore shifted to the petitioner, and he failed to prove the diamonds were not smuggled, so the confiscation challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authorities had sufficient material to invoke Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act and place the burden on the petitioner to prove that the seized diamonds were not smuggled goods.

Analysis: Section 178A operates only when goods are seized in the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods. Such belief must rest on facts, materials and circumstances, and need not depend on prior information alone. Mere suspicion is not enough, but a reasonable belief may arise from the conduct of the person concerned and the surrounding circumstances at the time of interception and inquiry. On the facts, the petitioner was intercepted while handing over diamonds, the companion returned the packet on seeing customs officers, and the petitioner failed to produce any supporting vouchers or reliable evidence of lawful acquisition.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 178A was valid, the burden lay on the petitioner, and he failed to prove that the diamonds were not smuggled. The challenge to confiscation failed.

---