Burden of proving smuggling not met for non-notified scrap; confiscation and consequential penalties were unsustainable.

Confiscation of non-notified metal scraps requires the Revenue to prove by positive, independent evidence that the seized goods were smuggled into India. Mere assumption, presumption, or uncorroborated statements about a general modus of importing scrap through unauthorised routes was insufficient where the record did not specifically link the seized consignments to smuggling. The adjudicating authority also erred by acknowledging the Revenue's burden yet effectively shifting it to the noticees to disprove smuggling. On that basis, confiscation of the metal scraps was not sustainable and was set aside, and the consequential confiscation of the trucks and penalties also could not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of the metal scraps was sustainable when the goods were non-notified and the Revenue relied on assumption, presumption, and uncorroborated statements to establish smuggling.

Analysis: The metal scraps were not notified goods. In such a case, the burden to establish their smuggled character lay on the Revenue. The record did not contain direct and independent evidence that the seized goods themselves had been smuggled into India. The statements relied upon only indicated a general modus of bringing scrap from Bangladesh through unauthorised routes, but did not specifically prove that the seized consignments were imported in that manner. The adjudicating authority's reasoning was also self-contradictory, as it accepted the Revenue's burden yet proceeded against the noticees for not disproving smuggling, and its conclusion rested on inference rather than proof.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the metal scraps was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods failed for want of positive proof of smuggling, and the consequential confiscation of the trucks and penalties also could not survive.

---