Burden of proof for non-notified goods under customs law prevented confiscation and penalty where smuggled nature was unproved

Confiscation and penalty for a movie camera were held unsustainable because the camera was not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and the Department failed to prove its smuggled character. In the absence of evidence of the actual import date or any prohibited sale period, the burden did not shift to the importer to prove lawful import. The Collector (Appeals) order was left undisturbed, and the Revenue's challenge failed. The governing principle is that, where goods are not notified, the Department must first establish smuggled nature before confiscation or penalty can be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation and penalty in respect of the movie camera were sustainable when the camera was not a notified item and the Department had not established its smuggled nature.

Analysis: The camera was not a notified item at the relevant time and was not shown to fall within the category covered by Section 123 of the Customs Act. In the absence of proof by the Department regarding the smuggled character of the camera, and since the actual date of import was not available to establish sale within any prohibited period, the burden did not shift to the respondent to prove licit import.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Collector (Appeals) was left undisturbed and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden remains on the Department to prove that the goods are smuggled before confiscation or penalty can be upheld.

---