Smuggled goods charge requires prima facie material where Section 123 does not apply; foreign labels alone are insufficient.

A charge under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained for seized medicines outside Section 123 unless the record contains prima facie material that they were smuggled goods. Foreign labels on the goods, by themselves, were held insufficient to support a charge of dealing with smuggled goods. The prosecution needed supporting material beyond a bare assertion of reasonable belief. On that basis, the framing of charge was found unjustified, the proceeding was quashed, and the seized goods were directed to be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether a charge under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be framed when the seized medicines were not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and when no prima facie material showed that they were smuggled goods.

Analysis: The goods recovered from the premises bore foreign labels, but that circumstance by itself was held insufficient to sustain a charge of dealing with smuggled goods. Since the goods did not fall within Section 123, the prosecution had to place prima facie material indicating that the seized articles were smuggled. The record disclosed only a bare assertion of reasonable belief by some witnesses, without supporting material to justify the framing of charge.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 135(1)(b)(ii) could not be sustained; the order framing charge was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was quashed, the impugned order was set aside, and the seized goods were directed to be returned.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are outside Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, a charge for offences relating to smuggled goods cannot be framed unless the record contains prima facie material showing that the goods were in fact smuggled.

---