Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by certificate is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature of the State of Punjab dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant is at present a resident of Barmer in the State of Rajasthan. But before 1947 he was living in a place which is now in Pakistan. On June 22, 1951, the Deputy Superintendent. Land Customs Station, Barmer, conducted a search of the appellants house and recovered therefrom the following ten articles :

Articles seized. Weight. Estimated Value.

Rs.

1. Silver slab 2600 tolas. 5,200/-

2. 29 Sovereigns (King Ed. VII). 2,262/-

3. 9 pieces of gold bullion. 201 tolas and 9 mushas. 22,193/-

4. 4 pieces of silver bullion. 114 tolas. 230/-

5. Uncurrent silver coins numbering 575. 865/-

6. Gold bars. 49 tolas and 9 mushas. 5,475/-

7. 255 Phials of liquid gold. 9,875/-

8. Torches 23.}

9. Playing cards 3 Dozens.}

10. Glass beads 48 packets.} 400/

_______

Total ... 46,500/-

On July 14, 1951, the Assistant Collector, Ajmer, gave notice to the appellant to show cause and explain why the goods seized from him should not be confiscated under S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and S. 7 of the Land Customs Act. The appellant in his reply stated that items 1 to 5 supra were brought by him from Pakistan after the partition of the country in 1947 and that items 6 to 10 were purchased by him bona fide for value in Barmer. On October 27, 1951, the appellant appeared before the Collector of Central Excise, who made an inquiry, and admitted before him that items 6 to 10 were smuggled goods from Pakistan, but in regard to the other items he reiterated his plea that he originally brought them from Pakistan in the year 1947. The Collector of Central Excise held that the appellant had failed to establish that items 1 to 5 had been brought by him to India in the year 1947 and he also did not accept the plea of the appellant in regard to items 6 to 10 that he was a bona fide purchaser of them. In the result he held that all the goods were imported into India in contravention of (i) S. 3 of the Import Export Control Act read with Ss. 19 and 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, (ii) Ss. 4 and 5 of the Land Customs Act read with S. 7 thereof. He made an order of confiscation of the said articles under S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act & S. 7 of the Land Customs Act; but under S. 183 of the Sea Customs Act he gave him an option to redeem the confiscated goods within four months of the date of the order on payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000. In addition he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 and directed the payment of import duty leviable on all the items together with other charges before the goods were taken out of customs control. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue agreed with the Collector of Central Excise that the onus of proving the import of the goods in question was on the appellant. In regard to items 1 to 5, it rejected the plea of the appellant mainly on the basis of a statement alleged to have been made by him at the time of seizure of the said articles. In the result the appeal was dismissed. The revision filed by the appellant to the Central Government was also dismissed on August 28, 1953. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab but it was dismissed by a division bench of the High Court on November 3, 1954. Hence this appeal.

3. It would be convenient to deal with this appeal in two parts-one in regard to items 1 to 5 and the other in regard to items 6 to 10.

4. The decision in regard to items 1 to 5 turns purely on the question of onus. The Collector of Central Excise as well as the Central Board of Revenue held that the onus of proving the import of the goods lay on the appellant. There is no evidence adduced by the customs