Burden of proof for non-notified goods requires affirmative evidence of smuggling; suspicion alone cannot justify confiscation.

Absolute confiscation of non-notified foreign-origin glassware was unsustainable because the Revenue failed to prove smuggled character with affirmative evidence. For non-notified goods, the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act did not shift merely because the possessor could not produce documents of lawful possession. The absence of papers and the presence of stickers or surrounding circumstances gave rise only to suspicion, and suspicion could not replace legal proof. The confiscation was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether absolute confiscation of non-notified foreign-origin glassware was sustainable in the absence of positive evidence of illegal import and in the face of the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly non-notified items, and the authority below proceeded mainly on the appellant's inability to produce documents of lawful possession. For non-notified goods, the burden to establish smuggled character remains on the Revenue, and that burden cannot be neutralised merely because the possessor fails to produce papers. The record did not contain affirmative evidence of unlawful import. Stickers on some cartons and the surrounding circumstances, at the highest, created suspicion, but suspicion cannot substitute legal proof.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable, and the appellant succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The order of absolute confiscation was set aside, and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving non-notified goods, smuggled character must be proved by the Revenue with affirmative evidence, and mere suspicion or absence of possession documents is insufficient to justify confiscation.

---