Burden of proof in smuggling cases remains on the Department to show some evidence of illegal importation.

In alleged smuggling of non-notified goods, the Department still had the initial burden to produce some evidence of illegal importation; Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be used to dispense with that burden. The Revenue relied on discrepancies in description and country of origin, but produced no material proving the seized goods were smuggled. The Tribunal had not applied an incorrect principle of law, and its view that the burden was not discharged was upheld. No substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in relation to non-notified goods alleged to be smuggled, the burden lay on the Department to produce evidence of illegal importation and whether the Tribunal had applied an incorrect principle of law.

Analysis: Smuggling is a clandestine activity and facts within the special or peculiar knowledge of the person proceeded against may attract the principle underlying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That principle does not relieve the Department of its initial burden to produce some evidence on the fact in issue. On the facts, the Revenue's case shifted from an assertion that the seized goods were not the goods covered by the bills of entry to discrepancies in description and country of origin, but no material was produced to establish that the seized goods were smuggled goods. The finding whether the burden has been discharged is a question of fact, and no wrong principle of law was shown to have been applied by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The burden remained on the Department to adduce some evidence of smuggled or illegally imported goods, and that burden was not discharged. The Tribunal's view was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.

---