Burden of proof for non-notified goods requires positive evidence; trade opinion alone cannot establish smuggled character.

For non-notified goods under the Customs Act, the Revenue must prove smuggled character with positive evidence, because the burden under Section 123 does not shift to the claimant. Foreign origin cannot be inferred merely from trade opinion, and the absence of documents showing lawful acquisition does not by itself establish smuggling. On that basis, confiscation and personal penalty were held unsustainable and were set aside, with consequential relief following.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of betel nuts and imposition of personal penalty were sustainable when the goods were non-notified and the Revenue relied only on trade opinion to allege foreign origin and smuggled character.

Analysis: Betel nuts were not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, so the burden to establish smuggled nature remained on the Revenue. The finding of foreign origin was based only on trade opinion, without expert evidence or other positive material. Mere failure of the appellant to produce documents showing lawful acquisition could not by itself prove that the goods were smuggled.

Conclusion: The confiscation and personal penalty were not justified and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded and consequential relief followed from the setting aside of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: For non-notified goods, the Revenue must establish smuggled character by positive evidence, and foreign origin cannot be presumed merely from trade opinion or the absence of proof of lawful acquisition by the claimant.

---