The burden of proof is on the Customs authorities to prove that seized goods are smuggled, and circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to prove that goods were smuggled, unless it is conclusive on the fact of smuggling.

This writ petition coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 11th day of August 1964 and this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 28-6-1962 and made herein, and the Counter affidavit, filed herein and the records relating to the order in D. A. Dis. No. VIII/10/II/61-Cus. Ad. dated 23-1-1962 on the file of the Respondent herein and comprised in the return of the Respondent to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S.M. Cassim, Advocate for the petitioner on 11-8-1964 and of Mr. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam and Mr. S.M. Cassim, advo cate for petitioner on 12-8-64 and of Mr. K. Venkataswami for the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondent on both days the Court made the following Order : -

2.By an order dated January 23, 1962, the Collector of Central Excise, who is the respondent, confiscated certain gold ingots as smuggled gold and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the petitioner. The respondent in making that order acted under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 8 (1) and 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. This petition is to quash the order.

3.On December 18, 1960, the Central Crime Branch Police authorities at Tirunelveli Town apprehended one Mohideen Sahib on suspicion near the Town Bus Service stop opposite to Tirunelveli junction railway station and seized from him four gold ingots weighing 200-0-9 tolas valued at Rs. 26, 195. They also seized from him at the time two motor fuel injection nozzles of foreign origin valued at Rs. 80. He gave a statement to the police that they were entrusted to him by one Ahmed Naina Meracayer of Kayalpattinam for delivery to one Latiff at Madras. Investigation showed that this Latiff was a fictitious name. The petitioner gave a statement on December 22, 1960 to the effect that the gold ingots belonged to him and it was he who asked Ahmed Naina to hand them over to Latiff at Madras, Ahmed Naina Meracayar also had given a statement on January, 28, 1961, affirming that the gold ingots belonged to his uncle Habeeb Mohamed and that he gave them to him for handing over the same to Latiff at Madras. The net effect of the Statements before the police and the department would appear to be that, according to the petitioner, he had the jewels of his wife melted in the shop of Seethu Salt Moosa at Tirunelveli and converted the same into ingots with a view to sell them to finance his proposed business. A receipt was pro duced before the department showing the payment of melting charges to Seethu Salt Moosa. When the matter was argued before the respondent, counsel for the petitioner stated that his client was not in a position to produce any accounts and he could not also substantiate his financial status to such an extent as to be in possession of the gold ingots or that he was running a business which would enable him to command the finance to enable him or his wife to own the jewels of so much worth. After asking for the explanation of the petitioner and giving a hearing to him the respondent noted that Mohideen Sahib had given a contradictory version, that Habeeb Mohammed was financially not so sound as to enable him to command the ingots and had no business from which it could be taken for granted that it was possible for Habeeb Mohammed or his wife to own the jewels of such considerable value and that Habeeb Mohammed himself significantly took no action for nearly a month after the gold ingots had been seized and the fact appeared in newspapers. In the view of the respondent, these facts provided circumstantial evidence for him to be convinced that the gold and motor parts were contraband and had been illicitly imported into this country contrary to the law. He also mentioned in his order that in addition to that Habeeb Mohammed had not satisfactorily explained the origin of the