Burden of proving smuggling remains on Customs for unnotified goods; bill mismatches alone do not justify confiscation.

For goods not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act, the Customs authorities retain the burden of proving smuggling. The article notes that the appellant produced purchase bills, several of which were accepted as genuine for a substantial part of the seizure. A mismatch in the bill particulars, by itself, was treated as insufficient to show absence of lawful possession or to justify confiscation of spectacle frames. On that basis, the confiscation was held unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of spectacle frames was sustainable when the goods were not notified under Section 123 and Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the bills produced by the appellant were found not to tally with the seized goods.

Analysis: For goods not covered by Section 123 or Chapter IV-A, the burden remained on the Customs authorities to establish that the goods were smuggled. The appellant had produced purchase bills, and the adjudicating authority had accepted many of them as genuine in respect of a substantial part of the seizure. A mismatch in particulars did not by itself establish absence of lawful possession or justify a conclusion that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---