Confiscation of conveyance requires proof of knowledge or conscious involvement, not mere hire-based transport of suspected smuggled goods.

Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires material showing the owner's or driver's knowledge, or conscious involvement, in transporting smuggled goods. On the facts noted, the record did not establish that the jeep owner participated in smuggling, and the statements of the driver and khalasi did not prove awareness that the packets contained foreign-origin contraband. Mere use of the jeep on hire, without proof of such knowledge, was insufficient to attract confiscation. The confiscation order was therefore set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the jeep was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged transport of smuggled goods, where the record did not establish the driver's or owner's knowledge of the contraband nature of the goods.

Analysis: The confiscation was based on the allegation that the jeep had carried smuggled items from Nepal. The record did not show the owner's involvement in smuggling. The driver's statement and the khalasi's statement did not establish that the driver knew the packets contained foreign-origin contraband. Mere use of the jeep on hire, without proof of such knowledge, was insufficient to fasten liability for confiscation under the provision.

Conclusion: The jeep was not liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the confiscation order was set aside with consequential relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) requires material showing knowledge, or conscious involvement, in the transport of smuggled goods; mere hire-based use of the vehicle is insufficient.

---