Burden of proof for smuggled goods failed where customs evidence and records were insufficient to justify confiscation.

Where seized turquoise were not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, the Department had to prove smuggled nature by reliable evidence. Recovery from residential premises, excess quantity over private records, and an appraiser's opinion of foreign origin were insufficient on their own, especially after the appellant produced documents explaining the goods. The Department treated those documents as an afterthought without testing their credibility. On those facts, the burden of proof remained undischarged and the material did not establish that the goods were smuggled or liable to confiscation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department had discharged the burden of proving that the seized tourquoise were smuggled goods liable to confiscation when the goods were not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were recovered from residential premises, some quantity was found in excess of the private records available at the spot, and the Customs Appraiser opined that the excess goods were of foreign origin. The appellant later produced documents to explain the goods, and the Department treated them as an afterthought without examining their credibility. Since the goods were not covered by the statutory burden-shifting scheme, the Department had to establish smuggled nature by reliable evidence. The circumstances relied upon were held to be insufficient, unlike the stronger and determinative facts present in the precedent on which the Department relied.

Conclusion: The Department failed to prove that the goods were smuggled or liable to confiscation, and the burden of proof remained undischarged.

---