Burden of proof for non-notified goods: foreign markings alone did not justify confiscation of silver bars.

For non-notified goods, the Department retained the burden of proving that the silver bars were smuggled or imported in violation of law. Foreign markings alone were insufficient to discharge that burden, especially where the record supported an earlier lawful acquisition and no independent evidence showed prohibited import or non-payment of duty. On that basis, confiscation was unsustainable and the order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the silver bars could be sustained merely because they bore foreign markings, in the absence of evidence that they were imported in violation of law or without payment of duty.

Analysis: The silver bars were not notified goods during the relevant period, so the initial burden remained on the Department to establish that they were smuggled goods. The only incriminating circumstance relied upon was foreign markings, but such markings by themselves were not enough to prove unlawful import. The record also contained material supporting the claim that the bars were acquired decades earlier, and no independent evidence was produced to show import contrary to restrictions or non-payment of duty.

Conclusion: The confiscation could not be sustained and the finding went in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation was set aside for the silver bars in question, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, the burden to prove smuggled nature lies on the Department, and foreign markings alone do not discharge that burden.

---