i) Order No. A-318/85:NRB - Shri P.K. Goel;

ii) Order No. A-69/86:NRB - M/s. Laxmi Bearings & Belting

iii) Order No. A-592/86:NRB - Shri Sunil Kumar;

iv) Order No. A-75 & 76/87:NRB - M/s. Sethi Bearing Sales Corp: Shri Kirpa Ram;

v) Order No. A-103 & 104/1989-NRB - M/s. Prem Chand Sahu and Gyan Chandra Sahu.

The appellant also submitted that the burden is on the Department to prove that the goods are smuggled in nature. No such proof is produced by the Department.

4. The learned J. D.R., Shri Sarkar reiterated the reasonings in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the submissions of both sides. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are carefully considered by me. They are not applicable to the facts of this case. In this particular case, the ball bearings in question are all foreign in origin. They are valued at more than Rs. 70,000.00. In all such cases, the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision.

In a case reported in AIR-1980-SC-793, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:-

"…….If he failed to disclose the identity of the persons who gave him the gold, then it was open to the Court to presume under Section s 106 and 1 14 of the Evidence Act that the appellant knew that the gold in his possession was smuggled and imported without permit."

Relying on the above observation of the Supreme Court and if the above principle is applied to the facts of this case, it is seen that the appellant has failed to disclose the names of the persons from whom he has acquired the foreign ball bearings. The appellant is dealing in ball bearings in the normal course of business. He is expected to purchase the same under proper bills. In this case, not only he has not produced any bills but he has failed to identify the persons from whom he has purchased these ball bearings. A vague statement is given that he has purchased it in Calcutta from the open market through some dalals. The fact that huge numbers of ball bearings are seized on a reasonable belief and when the appellant could not establish the source of possession of the same, the Department has already discharged its burden, which is initially cast on it. Thereafter, the burden¬is on the appellant to prove that he has licitly acquired the same. That is not discharged by the appellant. In the above-cited decision, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1966-2-SCR-480 in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras Vs. Best & Co. (P) Ltd. It was held in that decision as follow