11.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gian Chand v. State of Punjab (1962 AIR 496) , has categorically held that mere suspicion is not sufficient to justify seizure, and the prosecution must provide substantive evidence of foreign origin. In Union of India v. Mahesh Raj (1990 SCC (3) 115) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the burden under Section 123 arises only if there is prima facie evidence indicating foreign origin, which is entirely absent in this case. In D. Bhoormull (1974 AIR 859) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that suspicion alone is not a substitute for evidence. In Umrao Lal v. Commissioner of Customs (2016 (331) ELT 216 (Tri.Del.)) , it was explicitly held that in the absence of markings or material evidence proving foreign origin, confiscation is not sustainable. The Tribunal, Kolkata in Commissioner of Customs, Patna VERSUS M /s Lalit Krishna Agrawal in Customs Appeal No.75499 of 2022. The Tribunal, Kolkata in Om Sai Trading Company v. Union of India — 2020 (372) ELT 542 (Pat.), affirmed 2022 (382) ELT 9 (SC), held that the reason to believe must be that of an honest and reasonable person based on material available prior to seizure and that grounds cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons gathered after the fact.
