Contemporaneous documents and corroborative evidence sustain vehicle confiscation despite contrary ownership claims and revenue records.

Contemporaneous seized documents and corroborative oral evidence were treated as sufficient to show that the vehicle had been mortgaged and later transferred to an Indian national in breach of import control restrictions. The appellant's denial of any sale or mortgage was rejected because the documents were recovered from the relevant premises, matched the garage owner's unchallenged statement that the car had been repaired since 1982, and conflicted with the claim that the vehicle was left only for repairs in 1986. Revenue entries in the mother's name and the Bhutan customs letter were found insufficient to displace the department's evidence, so confiscation was upheld and release of the vehicle denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the vehicle was justified on the evidence of mortgage and sale documents, and whether the appellant established a right to release of the car.

Analysis: The seized agreement of 14-7-1982 showed that the vehicle had been mortgaged for a loan of NU-42,000/- to Ram Awatar Agarwala, and the sale deed of 17-3-1986 indicated a further transfer arrangement in favour of Ashok Kumar Moth. The appellant's denial of any sale or mortgage was not accepted because the documents were recovered from the premises of M.G. Agarwala, were corroborated by the unchallenged statement of the garage owner that the car had been repaired from 1982, and were inconsistent with the plea that the vehicle had been left only on 22-11-1986 for repairs. The Bhutan customs letter was treated as of no evidentiary value against the seized documents and oral evidence. The payment of tax in the name of the appellant's mother was held insufficient to displace the department's evidence.

Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld and the appellant was not entitled to release of the vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contemporaneous seized documents and corroborative unchallenged evidence establish that goods were placed in the possession of an Indian national in contravention of import control restrictions, the confiscation order is sustainable despite contrary assertions of ownership and incidental revenue records.

---