Burden under Customs Act defeated reference where seized Nepal goods lacked proof of lawful import and no question of law arose.

In a reference application under the Customs Act, 1962, the Court held that no question of law arose for certification under Section 130 because service of notice under Section 110 had already been established and, under Section 123, the burden shifted to the petitioner to prove lawful import. As no reliable material showed valid import of goods brought from Nepal, the import was treated as unlawful and no debatable legal issue remained for reference. The application therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether any question of law arose requiring a reference to the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, in a case where goods brought from Nepal were seized and confiscated.

Analysis: The application for reference was examined in the context of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted that notice under Section 110 had already been found to have been served and that, under Section 123, the burden shifted to the petitioner to establish lawful import and rebut the presumption attaching to the seized goods. In the absence of any reliable basis to show that the goods were validly imported, the Court treated the import as unlawful and found no debatable legal issue requiring a reference.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for certification or reference under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The application failed.

---