Burden of proof for non-notified goods bars confiscation and penalty unless smuggling is affirmatively proved

For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, confiscation requires the Department to affirmatively prove that the goods are smuggled; mere absence of documents showing lawful acquisition is insufficient. As the seized consumer goods were not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA and no evidence discharged the Department's burden, confiscation could not be sustained. The penalty also failed because it depended on the same unproven allegation of smuggling.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized goods, being non-notified goods, were liable to confiscation for alleged smuggling and whether the penalty imposed on the claimant was sustainable.

Analysis: The goods consisted of ordinary consumer items and were not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962. In the case of non-notified goods, the burden to establish smuggled character lies on the Department. Mere non-production of documents showing licit acquisition by the claimant is not sufficient by itself to prove smuggling. As no evidence was produced to discharge that burden, the confiscation could not be sustained. Since the penalty rested on the same finding of smuggling, it also could not survive.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation and the penalty on the appellant was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, confiscation and consequential penalty cannot be sustained unless the Department affirmatively proves that the goods are smuggled.

---