Burden of proof for non-notified goods smuggling cannot rest on suspicion alone; confiscation and penalty failed.

For non-notified goods, the Department must affirmatively prove smuggling before confiscation or penalty can be sustained. On the available record, there was no direct evidence that the Cinnamon had been brought from Nepal, while the appellants produced documents supporting lawful possession and purchase, and the stated sellers corroborated acquisition from customs auction. The circumstances relied on by the Department, including truck movement, absence of markings, night transport and quantity variation, were held to be explainable and insufficient, resting only on conjecture and surmise. Confiscation of the Cinnamon was therefore unsustainable, and the penalties and truck confiscation were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Cinnamon was proved to be smuggled goods so as to justify confiscation and the consequential penalties and confiscation of the trucks.

Analysis: The Cinnamon was treated as non-notified goods, so the burden lay on the Department to establish smuggling. The record showed no direct evidence that the goods had been brought from Nepal. The appellants produced documents on the date of seizure to support lawful possession and acquisition, and the stated sellers also supported the claim of purchase from customs auction. The circumstances relied upon by the Department, including truck movement, absence of markings, night transportation, and quantity variation, were found to be explainable and insufficient, resting only on conjecture and surmise.

Conclusion: The Cinnamon was not proved to be smuggled, confiscation was not sustainable, and the penalties and truck confiscation were also set aside in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: In respect of non-notified goods, smuggling must be affirmatively proved by the Department, and suspicion or unexplained circumstances alone cannot sustain confiscation and penalty.

---