Burden of proving smuggled goods remains on the Department; Section 106 only lessens, not removes, that evidentiary burden.

For non-notified goods, the Department must still adduce some evidence of illegal import or smuggled character; Section 106 of the Evidence Act only reduces, but does not remove, that initial burden. Even though certain facts may be within the special knowledge of the person proceeded against, that does not absolve the Revenue from proving the seized goods were smuggled. On the facts, the record after re-verification did not supply supporting material, and the discrepancies relied on were insufficient to establish smuggling. The Tribunal therefore applied no wrong principle of law, and the Department failed to discharge the burden of proof.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in relation to non-notified goods, the Department was required to prove illegal entry of the goods into the country and whether the Tribunal had applied an incorrect principle of law.

Analysis: The legal position affirmed was that although smuggling involves facts within the special knowledge of the person proceeded against, that circumstance does not absolve the Department of its initial burden to produce some evidence of illegal import or smuggled character. Section 106 of the Evidence Act may lighten the evidentiary burden, but it does not eliminate it. On the facts, the Revenue's case remained unsupported by material evidence after re-verification, and the discrepancies noticed were insufficient to establish smuggling.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not apply any wrong principle of law, and the Department failed to discharge the burden of proving that the seized goods were smuggled goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where facts lie within the special knowledge of the person proceeded against, the Department must still adduce some evidence to prove illegal import or smuggled character; Section 106 of the Evidence Act only reduces, but does not remove, that burden.

---