Confiscation of foreign-origin gold and Section 112 penalty sustained where no lawful import proof was produced.

Confiscation of foreign-origin gold biscuits was upheld where the possessor admitted recovery, did not dispute their smuggled character, and produced no proof of lawful import or possession; on those facts, no further departmental evidence was required, and the burden rule under Section 123 or Chapter IV-A did not assist him. A penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was also sustained because omission to mention the precise clause did not vitiate the order in the absence of prejudice, especially once Section 112 itself was invoked in relation to confiscation under Section 111.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of the foreign-origin gold biscuits was justified on the facts proved, and (ii) whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was invalid for non-mention of the specific clause.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of the foreign-origin gold biscuits was justified on the facts proved.

Analysis: The appellant did not dispute recovery of the foreign-origin gold biscuits from his possession and did not contest their smuggled character. He also failed to produce any document showing lawful possession or import. In these circumstances, no further evidence from the Department was required to establish that the goods were smuggled, and the rule placing the initial burden on the Department where Section 123 or Chapter IV-A is not attracted did not assist the appellant.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the seized gold biscuits was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was invalid for non-mention of the specific clause.

Analysis: The omission to specify the particular clause of Section 112 did not affect the legality of the penalty order. No prejudice was shown, and once Section 112 itself was invoked, further specification of the clause was not essential for sustaining penalty in relation to confiscation under Section 111.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was validly imposed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained in full and the appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellant admits possession of foreign-origin goods and does not dispute their smuggled character or produce proof of lawful import, confiscation can be sustained without further departmental evidence; likewise, non-mention of the precise clause of Section 112 does not vitiate a penalty order absent prejudice.

---