Conveyance confiscation requires proof of knowledge or connivance; absent that, truck confiscation cannot stand.

Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act depends on proof that the owner, agent, or person in charge knew of, or connived in, the transport of smuggled goods. The record described no material showing the owners' involvement in the smuggling activity and no finding that the driver knew the yarn was of foreign origin or smuggled. In the absence of such knowledge or connivance, the truck's confiscation could not be sustained, and the confiscation was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when there was no material to show that the owner or the person in charge had knowledge of, or connived in, the transportation of smuggled goods.

Analysis: Section 115(2) protects a conveyance from confiscation where the owner proves that it was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, agent, or person in charge. The record contained no material to show involvement of the owners in the smuggling activity, and no finding established that the driver had knowledge that the yarn was of foreign origin or smuggled. In the absence of such knowledge or connivance, confiscation of the truck could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the truck was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

---