Common parlance and notified-item classification defeated the burden of proof, making confiscation and penalty unsustainable.

A seized video camera was held not to be a notified item because the relevant list referred to a photographic camera and video cassettes, not a video camera. Applying common parlance, a photographic camera could not be treated as a video camera, and the fact that the article was old and used did not justify shifting the burden to the possessor. As the statutory burden under Section 11G(1) did not arise, confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable and the respondent succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized video camera was a notified item so as to attract the burden on the possessor to explain its lawful origin, and whether the confiscation and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The seized article was a video camera, while the notified list referred to a photographic camera and also included video cassettes, but not a video camera. Applying the common parlance understanding of the item, a photographic camera cannot be treated as a video camera. The camera was also found to be old and used, and the material on record did not justify shifting the burden to the respondent. In these circumstances, the finding that the goods were not a notified item was affirmed, and the statutory burden under Section 11G(1) was held not to arise.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable, and the respondent succeeded.

---