Burden of proving smuggling stays on the department when reverse-burden provisions do not apply; suspicion is insufficient.

Where seized goods are not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden remains on the department to prove smuggling by admissible evidence. Suspicion about the origin of the goods is insufficient to justify confiscation, and the department must establish that the goods were imported in contravention of law. On the materials available, that burden was not discharged, so confiscation was not sustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized goods, not being notified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962, could be confiscated without proof by the department that they had been smuggled into India, and whether the burden of proving smuggling lay on the department.

Analysis: The goods were seized in 1995, by which time they were not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962. In such a situation, the burden remained on the department to establish that the goods were imported in contravention of law. The circumstances relied upon by the department created suspicion about the origin of the goods, but suspicion alone was insufficient to discharge that burden. On the materials before it, the department had not proved smuggling on the requisite standard.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the goods were held not liable to confiscation on the evidence led.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are not covered by the reverse-burden provisions, confiscation cannot be sustained unless the department proves smuggling by admissible evidence; mere suspicion is not enough.

---