Reasonable belief of smuggling and retracted statements must be properly proved before gold confiscation and penalties can stand.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Reasonable belief of smuggling must rest on objective material, not mere suspicion, and a town seizure of gold by itself carries less inferential weight than seizure at a customs station or notified area. On the facts, there were no foreign markings, no evidence of the smuggling route or melting place, no corroboration from follow-up searches, and the alleged licit purchase was not disproved at the seller's end; the goods were therefore not shown to be smuggled or liable to confiscation. A retracted statement could not sustain confiscation and penalties where the procedure under Section 138B was not followed and the statement was not otherwise proved. The appellate order was affirmed and the departmental appeals were dismissed.....