Burden of proving foreign origin for non-notified goods failed, so absolute confiscation and penalty were not sustainable.

For non-notified goods, the Revenue must affirmatively prove foreign origin before confiscation and penalty can be sustained. Areca nuts are not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, so the burden remained on the Revenue to establish foreign origin by evidence. On the facts recorded, that burden was not discharged, and mere belief was insufficient. Absolute confiscation could not be sustained and penalty was not imposable, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized areca nuts, not being notified goods, were proved by the Revenue to be of foreign origin so as to justify absolute confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: Areca nuts are not goods notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden therefore lay on the Revenue to establish by evidence that the seized goods were of foreign origin. On the facts recorded, the Revenue failed to discharge that burden, and the belief that the goods were foreign-origin goods was not sufficient to sustain confiscation and penalty.

Conclusion: The order of absolute confiscation could not be sustained and the penalty was not imposable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In respect of non-notified goods, confiscation and penalty cannot be upheld unless the Revenue affirmatively proves foreign origin.

---