Burden of proving smuggling for non-notified goods failed; confiscation, penalties and vehicle seizure were set aside.

Exotic birds and mammals not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act placed the burden on Revenue to prove foreign origin, smuggling and unlawful import. The record suggested domestic movement within Mizoram, and without tangible corroborative evidence, mere suspicion and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to sustain confiscation. The same failure of proof meant the vehicle could not be confiscated as an instrument of smuggling. As a result, confiscation was set aside, penalties were held unsustainable, and release of the vehicle was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized exotic birds and mammals, together with the vehicle allegedly used for their transport, were liable to confiscation and whether penalties were sustainable when the goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Revenue had not established illicit import with corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The birds and mammals in question were not notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, so the burden remained on the Revenue to prove foreign origin, smuggling, and unlawful importation. The record indicated that the supplier stated he had received the consignment from another person within Mizoram and had supplied it in the domestic area, which supported the finding that the appellants had acquired the goods through domestic movement. In the absence of tangible and corroborative evidence establishing illegal import, mere suspicion and uncorroborated statements were insufficient to sustain confiscation. The same reasoning applied to the vehicle, which could not be treated as liable to confiscation once the underlying allegation of smuggling failed.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the seized birds and mammals was set aside, the penalties were not sustainable, and the vehicle was directed to be released. The decision was in favour of the assessee.

---