Burden of proof in alleged illegal importation: confiscation and penalties fail without adequate evidence of smuggling.

The department failed to establish a prima facie case of illegal importation of diesel engines, so confiscation and penalties could not be sustained. The Tribunal applied the ordinary rule that the burden remained on the department, as the special burden-shifting provisions were not shown to apply. The evidence was insufficient to displace the claim of lawful acquisition, especially where payments were made through banking channels and there was no adequate proof that the sellers were non-existent or that the engines had been imported in violation of law. It also noted that such goods, once marketed after payment of redemption fine, could not be treated as smuggled merely because of documentary irregularities or wrong accountal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the department had established a prima facie case of illegal importation so as to sustain confiscation of the seized diesel engines and the consequential penalties.

Analysis: The goods were not shown to be covered by the special burden-shifting provisions, and the ordinary rule that the burden lies on the person making the allegation continued to apply. The evidence relied upon by the department was found insufficient to displace the appellants' claim of lawful acquisition, particularly in view of the payments made through banking channels and the absence of adequate proof that the sellers were non-existent or that the engines had been imported in contravention of law. The Tribunal also noted that goods of this nature, once placed in the market after payment of redemption fine, could not be treated as smuggled in the popular sense merely because of documentary irregularities or wrong accountal.

Conclusion: The department failed to establish illegal importation. The confiscation was unsustainable and the penalties could not survive.

---