Burden of proof in smuggling cases requires cogent evidence of foreign origin before confiscation or penalty can stand.

Revenue must prove that seized goods are of foreign origin and smuggled nature before confiscation or penalty can be sustained. Here, the goods were not conclusively shown to be foreign-origin; the laboratory view that they might be of Indonesian origin was insufficient to discharge the Revenue's burden. The appellants produced evidence of lawful procurement and GST payment, while no cogent corroborative material established clandestine import or illicit acquisition. On that basis, the confiscation case failed and the penalties imposed on the appellants were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue had proved that the seized betel nuts and black pepper were of foreign origin and smuggled nature so as to justify confiscation and imposition of penalty on the appellants.

Analysis: The goods were not conclusively established to be of foreign origin. The laboratory opinion only indicated that they might be of Indonesian origin, which was insufficient to discharge the Revenue's burden. The appellants were able to show the source of procurement and payment of GST, and no cogent corroborative evidence was produced to prove clandestine import or illicit procurement.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were smuggled or liable to confiscation, and the penalties imposed on the appellants were unsustainable.

---