Burden of proof in customs confiscation cannot rest on suspicion alone where smuggled character is not proved by evidence.

Imported goods not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act placed the burden on the Department to prove smuggled character by adequate evidence. Disclosure of the alleged source of purchase, without more, was insufficient to sustain confiscation or personal penalty where the named seller did not respond to summons and no further effort was made to trace him or collect corroborative material. The decision reaffirms that suspicion, even with a large quantity of goods, cannot replace proof. Confiscation and penalty were therefore held unsustainable, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the imported T-shirts and the personal penalty could be sustained on the basis of suspicion, the non-appearance of the alleged seller, and the claimed restricted nature of the goods when they were not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were not notified under Section 123 or Chapter IVA of the Customs Act, 1962, so the burden remained on the Department to establish smuggled character by adequate evidence. The respondent had disclosed the source of acquisition by naming and giving the address of the person from whom the T-shirts were stated to have been purchased. The mere failure of that person to respond to summons, coupled with the large quantity of goods, was held insufficient to prove illegal importation, especially when no further effort was made to trace the said person or bring additional evidence on record. Suspicion could not substitute proof.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---