Customs confiscation requires proof of concealment or knowledge; biris and truck confiscations were unsustainable on the facts.

Confiscation of goods under customs law requires proof that the goods were used to conceal smuggled items; mere placement of contraband beneath bags of biris did not satisfy that statutory test, so confiscation of the biris was set aside. Confiscation of a vehicle also requires a finding that the driver or person in charge knew of its use for smuggling; where the owner lacked knowledge and the driver was neither present nor traced, that requirement was not met, so confiscation of the truck was also set aside. Consequential relief followed from the quashing of both confiscations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of biris was sustainable on the ground that they were used to conceal foreign-origin cloth and belt buckles under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the confiscation of the truck was sustainable in the absence of any finding that the driver or person in charge had knowledge of its use for smuggling.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of biris was sustainable on the ground that they were used to conceal foreign-origin cloth and belt buckles under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Confiscation under Section 119 requires use of the goods for concealment of smuggled items. A mere placing of contraband below bags of biris did not establish that the bags were used for concealment. The distinction between concealment and mere coverage was material, and the factual record did not support the inference drawn in the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the biris was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation of the truck was sustainable in the absence of any finding that the driver or person in charge had knowledge of its use for smuggling.

Analysis: The owner was found to have no knowledge, the driver was not present at interception, and the investigation did not locate him or establish his involvement. In the absence of a finding that the driver or person in charge knew of the vehicle's use for transporting contraband, confiscation of the vehicle could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the truck was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The confiscations of both the biris and the truck were quashed, and the appellants became entitled to consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under the customs law cannot be sustained unless the statutory requirement of concealment or the requisite knowledge connecting the vehicle or goods to smuggling is established on the facts.

---