Proof of foreign origin and owner involvement required before confiscation and penalty can stand in customs proceedings.

Confiscation of the truck and penalty on the owner were unsustainable because the Department failed to prove that the seized kattha was of Bangladeshi or otherwise foreign origin, or that it was restricted or prohibited under any applicable customs or foreign trade notification. No test report or technical opinion supported the allegation, and the owner's knowledge of smuggling was inferred only from secret cavities and surrounding circumstances. The Tribunal held that such inference could not replace proof of the goods' character or the owner's involvement, so the confiscation order and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck and penalty on the owner were sustainable where the Department failed to establish the alleged smuggled and foreign origin character of the goods and the owner's involvement.

Analysis: The record contained no material to prove that the seized kattha was of Bangladeshi origin. No test report or technical opinion was produced. The allegation of the owner's knowledge of smuggling was based only on the presence of secret cavities in the truck and on inferences drawn from surrounding circumstances. The Tribunal held that such inferences could not substitute for proof when the alleged restricted or prohibited character of the goods under the relevant customs and foreign trade provisions was also not shown by any notification or other admissible material.

Conclusion: The confiscation order and the penalty imposed on the owner were set aside; the appeal succeeded.

---