Burden under Customs law sustains confiscation where admission and surrounding circumstances support smuggled goods, despite retraction.

In proceedings involving suspected smuggled silver ingots and silver pellets, an admission recorded at seizure that the pellets were remnants of smuggled goods was treated as significant evidence. The later retraction was rejected, and the objection that the statement was recorded in English despite claimed illiteracy did not undermine its reliability. A request for cross-examination was also rejected. The burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act was held to remain on the appellant, and the materials on record were found sufficient to sustain confiscation and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the silver ingots and silver pellets and the penalty imposed under the Customs Act were sustainable when the appellant disputed the foreign origin of the goods and claimed retraction of the statement.

Analysis: The appellant's statement recorded at the time of seizure contained an admission that the silver pellets were remnants of smuggled silver ingots. The subsequent retraction was not found persuasive, and the contention that the statement was recorded in English despite the appellant's claimed illiteracy was not accepted. The plea based on cross-examination was also rejected. The burden cast on the appellant under Section 123 of the Customs Act was held to have been discharged against him.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld, and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings concerning suspected smuggled goods, an admitted statement and surrounding circumstances may suffice to sustain confiscation unless the person concerned discharges the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act.

---