Burden of proving lawful import and duty payment failed, so confiscation of seized gold and silver was sustained.

Seized gold bars and silver ingots were upheld as liable to confiscation because the petitioner failed to prove lawful import, duty payment, or legitimate acquisition. The receipts produced did not match the markings and description of the gold bars, and the aggregate weight in the baggage receipts did not correspond with the seized silver ingots. On those facts, the burden of establishing that the goods were not smuggled was not discharged, so confiscation was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized gold and silver were shown to have been lawfully imported and duty paid so as to invalidate confiscation.

Analysis: The seized gold bars and silver ingots were found in the petitioner's possession, and he failed to produce reliable documents proving licit origin or lawful acquisition. The receipts produced did not satisfactorily correlate with the seized gold, as the markings and description on the gold bars did not tally with the receipts relied upon. As regards the silver ingots, the aggregate weight shown in the baggage receipts did not match the seized ingots. On these facts, the petitioner did not discharge the burden of proving that the goods were duty paid and not smuggled.

Conclusion: The question is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue; confiscation was upheld.

---