Retracted confession and unexplained possession can prove smuggled goods, though permissible imports may avoid absolute confiscation.

Foreign-origin ball bearings were treated as smuggled goods where the seizure, the possessor's statement, and the appellant's section 108 admission were mutually corroborative. A bare retraction without particulars of coercion or threat did not displace the confession, and the failure to produce vouchers, bills, or the supplier's identity justified adverse inference from facts within the appellant's special knowledge. The initial burden of proving illicit character was therefore discharged and confiscation was justified. However, because the goods were not prohibited and could be imported under REP licence, absolute confiscation was unwarranted; redemption on payment of fine was permissible and the personal penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized foreign ball bearings were proved to be smuggled goods and liable to confiscation, and whether absolute confiscation was warranted in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The seizure was supported by the recovery of a large quantity of foreign-origin ball bearings, the statement of the person from whose possession they were recovered, and the appellant's own statement under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitting that the goods were smuggled. The retraction was not shown to have been made with any specific particulars of coercion or threat, and no convincing circumstances were established to discredit the statement. Since the appellant claimed purchase from auction or the open market but produced no vouchers, bills, or identity of the supplier, the facts within his special knowledge remained unexplained, justifying an adverse inference and shifting the onus. The Department, therefore, discharged the initial burden of proving illicit character of the goods. At the same time, the policy position showed that such ball bearings were not prohibited for import and could be imported under REP licence, so the goods were not fit for absolute confiscation.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held liable to confiscation as smuggled goods, but absolute confiscation was not justified; redemption on payment of fine was permissible. The personal penalty was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was maintained on merits, but the order was modified by permitting redemption of the goods on payment of fine, while confirming the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession does not by itself lose evidentiary value; where the Department adduces substantial surrounding evidence and the appellant fails to explain facts peculiarly within his knowledge, the burden shifts and the goods may be treated as smuggled, though absolute confiscation may still be declined if import is otherwise permissible under the policy.

---