Smuggled goods must be proved by evidence, not suspicion; confiscation fails where foreign origin is not established.

Dried ginger seized from a truck was held not proved to be of foreign origin or smuggled character, because the department relied mainly on intelligence and surrounding circumstances without producing evidence sufficient to establish even a prima facie case of smuggling. The record showed that ginger is extensively grown in Darjeeling, the bags bore no marking, no claimant came forward, and the driver did not admit foreign origin; there was also no material showing that dried ginger could not be locally produced or dried in the district. In the absence of proof, confiscation of the truck and the redemption fine could not be sustained, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dried ginger seized from the truck could be held to be of foreign origin and smuggled nature so as to justify confiscation of the truck and levy of redemption fine.

Analysis: The seizure rested on intelligence inputs and surrounding circumstances, but the record showed that ginger was an agricultural produce grown extensively in Darjeeling, there was no marking on the bags, no claimant came forward, and the driver did not admit that the goods were of foreign origin. No material was produced to show that dried ginger could not be locally produced or dried in the district. In the absence of evidence establishing even a prima facie case of smuggling, the presumption of foreign origin could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The dried ginger was not proved to be smuggled or of foreign origin, and the confiscation of the truck and redemption fine could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department fails to adduce evidence sufficient to establish the smuggled character of seized goods, confiscation cannot be upheld on suspicion or unsupported inference, and the benefit of doubt goes to the owner.

---