A challenge to absolute confiscation was held maintainable...

A challenge to absolute confiscation was held maintainable because it concerned confiscability and reverse-burden issues, not valuation, and the dispute fell within the policy threshold exception. The Court held that reasonable belief under Section 123 is governed by the prudent man test, not the place of seizure; concealment of high-value gold in a waist belt and the surrounding circumstances justified the reverse burden despite the absence of foreign markings. It further held that Section 108 statements remained substantive evidence because the retraction was highly belated and unsupported by coercion. The respondents failed to prove lawful provenance of high-purity bullion, and the order of absolute confiscation with penalties was restored.