Burden of proving smuggling in non-notified goods cannot rest on fake bills alone under customs law.

For non-notified ball bearings, the Revenue must prove the smuggled character before confiscation or penalty can stand under the Customs Act. Allegations that supplier firms were fictitious, or that purchase bills were false, may raise suspicion but do not by themselves discharge that burden. In the absence of independent evidence of contraband import or other material linking the goods to smuggling, confiscation and penalty are not justified and are set aside in favour of the importer.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of non-notified ball bearings and penalty under the Customs Act were sustainable when the Revenue relied mainly on the alleged fictitious nature of the supplier firms and the purchase bills.

Analysis: Ball bearings were non-notified goods, so the burden remained on the Revenue to establish that they were smuggled. Mere absence of traceability of the supplier firms or falsity of the purchase bills could create suspicion, but suspicion could not substitute for proof of smuggled character. The record contained no independent evidence from the Revenue showing contraband import or other material to discharge the burden under the applicable customs provisions.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the penalty were not justified and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, the burden to prove smuggled character remains on the Revenue, and fake bills or fictitious suppliers by themselves are insufficient to establish smuggling.

---