Burden of proving smuggling governs confiscation of non-notified goods; suspicion alone cannot justify seizure or release denial.

Confiscation of non-notified T-shirts and half shirts was unsustainable because the department failed to prove they were smuggled goods; foreign origin or suspicion alone did not discharge the burden of proof, so release was ordered in favour of the appellant. The personal penalty was nevertheless sustained because the allegation relating to notified wrist watches, said to be foreign-origin goods thrown out from the flat by the appellant, supported penalty on that aspect. The appeal therefore succeeded only in relation to the confiscated garments, while the remaining order, including the penalty, was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the T-shirts and half shirts, which were not notified goods, could be sustained without proof that they were smuggled goods; (ii) Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the T-shirts and half shirts, which were not notified goods, could be sustained without proof that they were smuggled goods.

Analysis: The goods were not notified under Chapter IV-A and were also not covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act. The burden therefore remained on the department to establish that they were smuggled goods. The record did not contain evidence showing illicit importation or non-payment of duty by the passengers from whom the goods were said to have been purchased. An admission that the goods were purchased from passengers coming from abroad, and circumstances creating suspicion, did not by themselves establish smuggling. Goods of foreign origin are not automatically liable to confiscation unless the department proves that they were smuggled.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the T-shirts and half shirts was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant required interference.

Analysis: The order relating to confiscation of wrist watches was not challenged. The allegation as to the watches was that they were of foreign origin and had been thrown out from the flat by the appellant. On that basis, the authority was justified in imposing a personal penalty in relation to the appellant's acts concerning the notified goods.

Conclusion: The personal penalty was upheld and no interference was called for against the appellant on this aspect.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the confiscation of the T-shirts and half shirts, which were ordered to be released to the appellant, while the remaining order, including the penalty, was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, the department must prove smuggling by evidence; foreign origin or suspicion alone is insufficient to justify confiscation.

---