Burden of proof for notified goods under Customs law sustained confiscation where import documents did not match seized light emitting diodes.

Seized light emitting diodes were held not to be proved as lawfully imported because the documents relied upon by the appellants did not correlate with the goods, the import chain was broken, and the alleged repacking was unsupported. Applying the burden of proof for notified goods under Customs law, the authorities found that the appellants failed to establish lawful coverage of the seized goods. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized light emitting diodes were proved to be lawfully imported and correlatable with the appellants' documents, and whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were justified.

Analysis: The goods were found in original packing bearing markings inconsistent with the import documents relied upon by the appellants. The alleged importing entities and intermediaries denied connection with the seized goods, and the chain of documents and transactions was found to be broken. The plea of repacking was unsupported and uncorroborated, and the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof applicable to notified goods under the Customs law.

Conclusion: The seized goods were not proved to be covered by lawful import documents, and the orders of confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were upheld against the appellants.

---