Proof of sale proceeds of smuggled goods required for confiscation; retracted statement and suspicion were insufficient to sustain penalty.

Currency seized from the appellant could not be confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act because the evidence failed to establish that it represented the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The alleged intermediary, ownership of the currency, and the necessary link between the money and any smuggled goods were not satisfactorily proved, and a retracted statement alone was insufficient to satisfy the statutory ingredients. Mere suspicion that the cash was unexplained or unlawfully acquired was inadequate. As the foundational basis for confiscation was not made out, the penalty under Section 112 also could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the currency seized from the appellant was established to be the sale proceeds of smuggled goods so as to be liable to confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act, and whether the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could be sustained.

Analysis: The evidence relied upon did not satisfactorily establish the existence of the alleged intermediary, the ownership of the currency, or the essential link between the seized money and any sale of smuggled goods. The retracted statement, by itself, was found insufficient to prove the ingredients required for action under Section 121. Mere suspicion that the currency was not legally accounted for or may have been acquired unlawfully was held inadequate to prove that it was the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable and the penalty could not be upheld.

---