Burden of proof in customs misdeclaration cases requires reliable evidence; photocopies alone may not sustain confiscation and penalty.

In customs adjudication, the department must prove misdeclaration and illegal export on the strength of reliable material; photocopies of correspondence and invoices, without satisfactory proof of authorship or corroboration, were insufficient. The Tribunal noted that alleged expert verification was not disclosed in the notice, shipping bills showed examination of the consignments, and the record did not establish export of the banned goods. On the available evidence, the probabilities favoured the appellant and the benefit of doubt had to be extended, so confiscation and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the department had proved, on the material available, that the appellant exported prohibited jungle cock necks and jungle fowl necks by misdeclaration so as to justify confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The departmental case rested mainly on photostat copies of correspondence and invoices said to have been written by the appellant, together with annexures and the surrounding circumstances. The appellant denied authorship of the letters, disputed the evidentiary value of xerox copies, and relied on shipping bills showing examination of consignments without jungle cock necks. The Tribunal held that, in customs adjudication, the burden remains on the department to establish the charge. The alleged expert verification was not supplied in the show-cause notice, and the record did not satisfactorily establish that the copied documents, standing alone, proved the export of the banned goods. The Tribunal also found that the probabilities, on the available record, favoured the appellant and that the benefit of doubt had to be extended.

Conclusion: The charge was not proved sufficiently to sustain the confiscation and penalty, and the appeal succeeded.

---