Customs appeal successful as burden not met to prove seized goods were smuggled under Section 111.

The appeal was allowed as the burden to prove the smuggled nature of seized goods of foreign origin under Section 111 of the Customs Act was not discharged by the Department. The goods, found at the appellants' premises, were not proven to be smuggled as they were available in the open market and not notified goods at the relevant time. The mere absence of a bill did not establish smuggling. As the Department failed to meet its burden, the confiscation and penalty were deemed unjustified, leading to the appeal's success and setting aside of the impugned order.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against order-in-appeal affirming confiscation of seized goods of foreign origin under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty.

Summary:
The appeal was directed against the order-in-appeal affirming the confiscation of seized goods of foreign origin under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty. The goods were found during a search at the premises of the appellants' firm, and the adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner of Customs affirmed this order. However, upon review, it was observed that the burden to prove the smuggled character of the goods was on the Department. While the proprietor admitted the foreign origin of the goods, the Department failed to prove their smuggled nature, especially considering the goods were available in the open market and not notified goods at the relevant time. The mere non-production of a bill could not lead to the inference of smuggling. As the Department did not discharge its burden, the confiscation and penalty were deemed unjustified. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief permissible under the law.

---