Customs confiscation failed where green peas were not notified goods and smuggling lacked admissible, corroborated proof.

Confiscation of green peas under the Customs Act was found unsustainable because the Revenue failed to prove smuggling with admissible and corroborative evidence. Green peas are not notified under Section 123, so the burden remained on the Revenue; statements of the appellant and truck drivers could not be relied on without examination under Section 138B, and foreign markings on sacks were insufficient by themselves to establish the place, method, time, or persons involved in the alleged smuggling. On that evidence, the confiscation and penalty were set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of green peas and the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 were sustainable when the alleged smuggling was sought to be proved only through statements and markings on the sacks, without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The goods were recovered from trucks parked near a godown and not from a customs station or the international border. The evidence relied upon by the Revenue consisted of the statement of the appellant, the statements of the truck drivers, and the markings on the sacks describing the goods as Canadian origin. Green peas are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, so the burden remained on the Revenue to prove that the goods were smuggled. The statements were not admissible for reliance in the absence of examination of the persons concerned in terms of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. Foreign markings on bags, by themselves, were held insufficient to establish smuggling without positive, tangible corroboration of the place, method, time, and persons involved.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the penalty were not sustainable and were set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---