Judgment :- The petitioners applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 20-3-1957 and the appellate order of the Collector of Customs dated 27-5-1957, confirming the order of the Assistant Collector. 2.The petitioner is a partnership firm, which carries on trade in consumer goods among others in its shop, 'School View Stores". On 23-10-1956 the officers of the Customs Department searched the shop as well as the house occupied by Cassim, one of the partners, and seized a number of articles on suspicion, that these goods had been smuggled into the country contrary to the regulations in force. After an investigation, notice was served on the petitioner to show cause why the goods listed in that notice should not be confiscated as smuggled goods. After an enquiry the Assistant Collector recorded :- 'In reply to the show cause memo issued to him Mr. Cassim stated that the goods in his possession which were normally available through trade channels should be presumed to be legally acquired by him. The explanation of Mr. Cassim is not satisfactory and therefore cannot be accepted'. The Assistant Collector ordered :- 'I confiscate the articles mentioned below under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, but option is given in lieu of confiscation under Section 183ibidto redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 334, duty and other charges leviable thereon within a period of four months or within such extended period as may be allowed on good cause being shown'. It should be useful to set out the list of articles eventually ordered to be confiscated : 3. It should be noted that nine items of the articles seized on 23-10-1956 were ordered to be returned. The order of the Assistant Collector embodied a tabular statement of all the goods seized and the last column showed the result of the enquiries with reference to each of the items, which apparently furnished the basis for the release of some of the articles seized and for the confiscation of the others. 4.It was to these factors that the Collector referred in his appellate order. The Collector stated : 'As regards the articles confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs the department has established that the covering documents produced by the appellant do not relate to the articles. 4.It was to these factors that the Collector referred in his appellate order. The Collector stated : 'As regards the articles confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs the department has established that the covering documents produced by the appellant do not relate to the articles. For this purpose references given by the appellant have been fully verified by the Customs House and established as not connected with the articles which were therefore confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs'. 'As regards the appellant's contention that the onus of proof lies on the Department, the correct position is that if from the surrounding circumstances there is sufficient ground for presuming that the goods have been illegally imported, it is not necessary for the Customs House to positively establish that the goods are smuggled, and the onus of proof shifts to the other side. I find that this is what has happened in this case. The licensing policy for these articles had been very strict. Moreover the bills or cash vouchers on which the appellant relied turned out to be unconnected with the goods seized. This point has further been established by the evidence available from the alleged suppliers of these goods. The appellants have not established licit importation of the goods'. 5.It seems clear to us that it was on the ground that the burden lay upon the petitioner to establish that the goods had been lawfully imported into the country and that the petitioner had not discharged that burden that the authorities rested their ultimate conclusion, that the goods were smuggled goods, liable to be confiscated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. 6.It was never in dispute that all the goods enumerated in the list recorded above came within the scope of Rule 3 of the Imports Control Order, 1955 which ran :'Save as otherwise provided in this Order, no person shall import any goods of the description specified in Schedule I except under and in accordance with a licence or Customs clearance permit granted by the Central Government or by any officer specified in Schedule II'. It should also be remembered that it was never the case of the Department that the petitioner himself had imported any of the goods in question. It should also be remembered that it was never the case of the Department that the petitioner himself had imported any of the goods in question. 7.Certainly the authorities were entitled to reject as unproved the plea of the petitioner that these goods had been acquired by the petitioner through the normal trade channels in the open market. But that does not necessarily establish that either the goods had been illegally imported or even that the petitioner knew at the time of the acquisition of these goods that they had been illegally imported into the country. It certainly was not the case of the Department that the articles mentioned in the list, or any of them, were not available in the market in India, though import of these articles were restricted. As we have already pointed out, it was never the case of the Department that the petitioner himself had imported these goods contrary to the regulations. There was nothing inherently suspicious in the stocks of each article held by the petitioner. We are making no distinction between the goods seized from the shop and those seized in the house of Cassim. To take some examples, it may be difficult to hold that possession of three cakes of Monny Mammoth Toilet Soaps was by itself suspicious, or that the possession of four Eveready Torch Cells was suspicious. Nine Nylon shirts were seized from Cassim's house. The petitioner's explanation was that they had been acquired for the personal use of the members of Cassim's family. Even if that was rejected, and the Department held that these nine Nylon shirts were kept for sale, there was nothing suspicious about the quantity kept for sale. Twelve cushion covers (velvet) again fail to arouse suspicion. Even the stock of 19 plus 11 dozen of Slide Combs of Hongkong origin was apparently never considered to constitute an unreasonable stock, considering the normal turnover in the shop of the petitioner. We have referred to these features only to emphasise that neither the description of the goods nor the quantity of these goods was sufficient to indicate that these goods could not have been acquired by a trader in the position of the petitioner in the open market in India. We have referred to these features only to emphasise that neither the description of the goods nor the quantity of these goods was sufficient to indicate that these goods could not have been acquired by a trader in the position of the petitioner in the open market in India. To take again another example, the position might have been different if, instead of being asked to account for the purchase of nine nylon shirts, the petitioners had had to account for the acquisition of stock of nine thousand shirts, of which nine remained unsold at the time of the seizure. What really happened was that every article, irrespective of the quantity, the purchase of which the petitioner did not prove to the satisfaction of the Customs authorities, was held to be smuggled goods and ordered to be confiscated. 8.Considering the position that the petitioner was a trader in those goods, which apparently kept regular accounts, there was nothing unreasonable in calling upon the petitioner to explain under what circumstances and from whom he purchased the goods; nor was there anything unreasonable in the further demand, that the truth of his explanation should be proved by the petitioner; purchase of articles in the course of its trade was a factor within the knowledge of the petitioner. But failure to prove for example the purchase of one bottle of Sloane Liniment or one bottle of Eucalyptus oil may not be material on which by itself the Customs authorities could rest a conclusion that these had been illegally imported. As we said, the authorities apparently made no attempt to distinguish one article of merchandise from another from among those seized from the petitioner; all were confiscated as smuggled goods. The real basis for that was (i) the suspicion that the petitioner traded in smuggled goods, which was what led to the search, and (ii) the petitioner did not prove the purchase of these articles from the dealers named by the petitioner. Neither, in the circumstances of this case, constitutes, in our opinion, material on which a conclusion could be rested, that all these were smuggled goods, or even a conclusion that when the petitioner acquired these goods it knew or had reason to believe that these were smuggled goods. Neither, in the circumstances of this case, constitutes, in our opinion, material on which a conclusion could be rested, that all these were smuggled goods, or even a conclusion that when the petitioner acquired these goods it knew or had reason to believe that these were smuggled goods. 9.The Collector, it should be remembered, recorded '............if from the surrounding circumstances there is sufficient ground for presuming that the goods have been illegally imported, it is not necessary for the Customs House to positively establish that the goods are smuggled, and the onus of proof shifts to the other side'. We are not commenting on the soundness or otherwise of this proposition of law. What the 'surrounding circumstances' the Collector had in view were was not clear either from the order or from the counter-affidavit.10.As we are of opinion that there was no material on which could be rested a finding, that the possession of the goods in question constituted a contravention of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, we direct that the rulenisibe made absolute, and that the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector be set aside. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.