Burden of proving smuggled character defeats bus confiscation where no knowledge or foreign-origin evidence was shown.

Under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, confiscation of a conveyance requires proof that the goods carried were of foreign origin or had a smuggled character, and in the case of non-notified goods the burden lies on the Revenue to establish that element. The record did not show that the goods found in the bus were smuggled or foreign-origin goods, and there was no evidence that the owner, driver, or cleaner had knowledge of any such character. On those facts, the legal basis for confiscation of the bus was not made out, and the confiscation was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the bus under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified when the seized goods were not shown to be of foreign origin or smuggled character and there was no evidence of knowledge on the part of the owner, driver, or cleaner.

Analysis: The record did not establish that the goods found in the bus were of foreign origin or smuggled nature. There was also no material to show that the bus owner, driver, or cleaner had any knowledge of the alleged character of the goods. In the case of non-notified goods, the burden remained on the Revenue to prove the smuggled character, and that burden was not discharged. The absence of knowledge on the part of those in charge of the vehicle negatived the basis for confiscation of the conveyance.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the bus was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---