Burden of proof for non-notified imported goods rests on Revenue; absence of import papers alone does not prove smuggling

For non-notified foreign-origin goods, the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act remains on the Revenue to prove smuggled nature by positive evidence. Mere failure by the importer to produce documentary proof of legal importation does not, by itself, justify an inference of smuggling. As no such evidence was produced, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in respect of non-notified foreign-origin goods, the burden lay on the Revenue to prove smuggled nature and whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained merely because the appellant failed to produce documentary proof of legal import.

Analysis: The goods were treated as non-notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act. In such cases, the onus to establish that the goods are smuggled lies on the Revenue, and that burden must be discharged by positive evidence. Mere absence of documents from the appellant showing legal importation does not, by itself, justify an inference that the goods are smuggled. Since the Revenue produced no such evidence, confiscation and penalty could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---