Presumption of smuggled origin upheld for foreign goods where no purchase proof or source details were produced.

Foreign-origin ball bearings seized in substantial quantity, without purchase documents or identifiable sellers, were treated as sufficient to raise a presumption of smuggled nature. The Department was not required to prove smuggling with mathematical precision once the surrounding circumstances indicated unlawful possession. The burden shifted to the appellant to explain lawful acquisition, but the appellant gave only a vague claim of purchase through dalals from the open market and produced no bills or source details. Earlier decisions cited by the appellant were held inapplicable on the facts. Confiscation and penalty were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of foreign-origin ball bearings and the penalty imposed were justified on the basis that the Department had discharged the initial burden of showing smuggled nature and the appellant had failed to prove lawful acquisition.

Analysis: The ball bearings were foreign origin, seized in substantial quantity, and were not supported by purchase documents. The appellant did not identify the persons from whom the goods were allegedly purchased and only gave a vague explanation that they were bought from the open market through dalals. In such circumstances, the Department was not required to establish smuggling with mathematical precision. Once the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to raise a presumption, the burden shifted to the appellant to explain lawful possession. By failing to produce bills or source details, the appellant did not rebut the presumption. The reliance on earlier decisions was held to be inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the penalty were upheld, and the appeal failed.

---