Burden of proof for non-notified goods remains on Customs unless smuggled nature is proved by evidence.

In cases concerning non-notified goods, the burden of proving smuggled nature remains on the Customs Department; foreign origin alone and the possessor's failure to produce purchase documents do not shift that burden. Reading Section 123 of the Customs Act with the principle underlying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Tribunal held that the Department must establish its case on the evidence adduced and had not discharged that burden. The confiscation and penalty relief granted to the respondent was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in respect of non-notified goods under the Customs Act, the burden of proving smuggled nature remained on the Customs Department or shifted to the possessor of the goods.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the mere fact that the goods were foreign-origin or that the respondent had not produced purchase documents did not by itself shift the burden onto him. Reading Section 123 of the Customs Act with the principle underlying Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus remained on the Customs authorities to establish the case against the respondent. The Tribunal relied on settled law that the burden does not automatically move to the possessor in cases of non-notified goods and that the Department had not discharged the required burden on the evidence placed before it.

Conclusion: The Department had not proved that the non-notified goods were liable to confiscation, and the order relieving the respondent from confiscation and penalty was upheld.

---