Reasonable belief at seizure, not later suspicion, is required to shift the burden in smuggled goods confiscation.

A statutory burden-shifting provision applies only where the seizing officer, at the time of seizure, had a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled; a mere suspicion is insufficient and cannot trigger the presumption. On the facts, the gold was taken on suspicion arising from employee conduct and a stock shortage, while the detention was described as pending inquiry. The materials did not show that the seizing officer formed the required reasonable belief when the seizure was made, so the burden could not shift and the confiscation order could not be sustained. The writ relief quashing the confiscation was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the burden-shifting provision could be invoked only if the gold was seized in the reasonable belief that it was smuggled goods; (ii) Whether the seizure in the present case was effected in such reasonable belief and whether confiscation under the Act was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the burden-shifting provision could be invoked only if the gold was seized in the reasonable belief that it was smuggled goods.

Analysis: The statutory language was treated as plain and mandatory. The condition for shifting the burden was not a later belief formed during inquiry, nor a belief entertained by the inquiry authority, but the existence of a reasonable belief in the mind of the seizing officer at the time of seizure. A seizure made merely on suspicion was distinguished from a seizure made on reasonable belief, and the statutory safeguard was held to restrain arbitrary action by customs officers.

Conclusion: The provision applied only where the seizing officer had a reasonable belief at the time of seizure that the goods were smuggled.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure in the present case was effected in such reasonable belief and whether confiscation under the Act was sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that the gold was taken on suspicion arising from the employee's conduct and an unexplained shortage in stock, while the order itself described the detention as pending further inquiry. The materials did not establish that the seizing officer had, at the moment of seizure, the requisite reasonable belief that the entire quantity was smuggled goods. Without satisfaction of that statutory condition, the burden could not be shifted to the respondents, and the confiscation order could not stand.

Conclusion: The seizure was not shown to have been made in reasonable belief, and the confiscation order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation failed, and the writ relief granted by the High Court was upheld, leaving the respondents entitled to retain the benefit of the quashing of the confiscation order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute shifts the burden only upon seizure made in a reasonable belief that goods are smuggled, that belief must exist in the seizing officer's mind at the time of seizure; a seizure made merely on suspicion cannot trigger the statutory presumption or sustain confiscation.

---