Circumstantial evidence can prove smuggled origin in customs cases involving restricted goods, supporting confiscation and moderated penalties.

For non-notified but restricted goods, customs authorities may rely on circumstantial evidence, contemporaneous statements and adverse inference to form a reasonable belief of smuggled origin where lawful possession is unsupported by stock records or documents. On those facts, confiscation of the silver was upheld, and belated retractions and criminal acquittal did not negate the departmental finding. Penalties were not disturbed in principle, but the quantum was moderated in light of the overall circumstances: the refinery owner's penalty was reduced, while the supervisor's penalty was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the silver under the Customs Act was justified on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the statements recorded during search and investigation. (ii) Whether the penalties imposed on the persons concerned were sustainable in full.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the silver under the Customs Act was justified on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the statements recorded during search and investigation.

Analysis: The silver was not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, but its import was restricted. The goods found in the refinery were the result of melting ten silver bars, and the absence of foreign markings on the chorsas did not by itself negate smuggled origin. The surrounding circumstances, including the contemporaneous statements of the refinery workers and Ajay Parekh, the asserted foreign markings on the bars, the absence of stock entries or documents of lawful possession, and the inconsistencies in the explanation of local purchase, were treated as sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the silver had been unlawfully imported. The belated retractions and the acquittal in the criminal proceedings did not dislodge the departmental finding, since the standard in customs adjudication permits reliance on circumstantial evidence and adverse inference.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the silver was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the persons concerned were sustainable in full.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had imposed penalties on the owner of the refinery and the person who supervised the melting process. While the finding of illicit import and confiscability was sustained, the appellate forum considered the quantum of penalty in the light of the overall circumstances and the long waiver of pre-deposit enjoyed by the appellants.

Conclusion: The penalty on Rajendra Jagannath Parekh was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs and the penalty on Ajay Shashikant Parekh was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The customs demand regarding confiscation was affirmed, but the monetary liability of the owner was moderated, leaving the departmental case substantially sustained with partial relief on penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs adjudication involving non-notified goods, smuggled nature may be proved by circumstantial evidence and the explanation of lawful acquisition may be rejected if unsupported and inconsistent, with the burden then shifting to the person in possession to establish licit origin.

---