Burden of proof on foreign-origin goods failed, so vehicle confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable.

Confiscation of a vehicle used to transport alleged foreign-origin goods cannot stand where the Revenue fails to prove that the goods were in fact of foreign origin. Because the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden remained on the Revenue to establish smuggled or foreign-origin character, and that burden was not discharged on the evidence. In the absence of reliable proof, the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty lacked legal basis and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the vehicle, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable when the Revenue failed to prove that the goods transported were of foreign origin and the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The allegation was that the vehicle was used to transport green peas and yellow peas of foreign origin. No document or reliable evidence was produced to establish that the seized goods were of foreign origin. As the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove foreign origin, and that burden was not discharged. In the absence of proof of smuggled or foreign-origin goods, confiscation of the vehicle could not be sustained, and the consequential redemption fine and penalty also had no legal basis.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the vehicle, the redemption fine and the penalty were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---