Registered ownership governs confiscation disputes where the statute is silent on "owner", despite a hire purchase arrangement.

Where the Customs Act does not define "owner", the term is construed as the registered owner of the vehicle, following the same approach taken under the NDPS Act. On that basis, a hire purchase arrangement does not displace registered ownership for confiscation purposes when the vehicle remains registered in the hirer's name. The appellant therefore could not claim ownership or the sale proceeds of the confiscated vehicle, and the impugned order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a definition of "owner" in the Customs Act, the owner of a confiscated vehicle is to be treated as the registered owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, and whether the appellant was entitled to claim ownership or sale proceeds of the confiscated vehicle on the basis of a hire purchase arrangement.

Analysis: The legal position applied was that, where the governing statute does not define "owner", the expression is to be construed as the registered owner of the vehicle. The earlier Supreme Court ruling on a similar question under Section 60(3) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was treated as applicable because the Customs Act also contained no definition of owner. Since the vehicle stood registered in the name of the hirer and the appellant did not dispute that fact, the hire purchase arrangement did not displace the registered ownership for the purpose of the confiscation dispute.

Conclusion: The appellant's claim was rejected and the impugned order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory definition of "owner", the registered owner of the vehicle is to be treated as the owner for purposes of confiscation, even where the vehicle was subject to a hire purchase arrangement.

---