Burden of proof for non-notified goods under customs law failed, so confiscation and personal penalty were set aside.

In a dispute over confiscation of betel nuts, non-notified goods under section 123 of the Customs Act placed the burden on the Revenue to prove foreign origin and illegal import. Circumstantial material and the appellant's inability to prove Indian origin were insufficient to meet that burden, and the evidence did not establish smuggling beyond doubt. Absolute confiscation and personal penalty were therefore held unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether absolute confiscation of betel nuts and imposition of personal penalty were sustainable when the goods were non-notified and the department had not proved that they were of foreign origin or smuggled.

Analysis: The goods were treated as non-notified under section 123 of the Customs Act, so the burden remained on the Revenue to establish that they were of foreign origin and had been illegally imported. The adjudicating authority had proceeded mainly on circumstantial material and on the appellant's inability to prove Indian origin, but that was insufficient to discharge the departmental burden. The evidence did not prove smuggling beyond doubt.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---