Burden of proof in customs confiscation: unnotified ball bearings could not be treated as smuggled without positive evidence.

Confiscation of foreign-origin ball bearings was unsustainable because the goods were not notified under section 123 of the Customs Act and the department failed to prove smuggled origin by positive evidence. In the absence of notification, the burden remained on the Revenue; the trader's failure to produce purchase bills or vouchers did not by itself shift that burden. A statement recorded under section 108, without corroboration, was insufficient to sustain confiscation, and any alleged admission of illegal procurement could at most justify further inquiry, not a conclusive finding of smuggling.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of foreign-origin ball bearings was sustainable when the goods were not notified under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the department had not independently proved that they were smuggled.

Analysis: The goods were ball bearings, which were freely importable under the then applicable import policy, and the absence of purchase bills or vouchers by itself did not shift the burden to the trader to prove lawful acquisition. Since the goods were not notified goods under section 123, the burden remained on the department to establish smuggled origin by positive evidence. A statement recorded under section 108, standing alone, was insufficient to justify confiscation without corroborating evidence, and the alleged admissions about illegal procurement could at most justify further inquiry, not a conclusive finding that the stock was smuggled.

Conclusion: The confiscation was held unsustainable and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---