Conveyance confiscation requires proof of knowledge or connivance; lack of evidence on the driver defeats confiscation.

Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable where the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance and there is no evidence that the person in charge knew the goods were smuggled. The text notes that the order itself recorded the owner's absence from the smuggling activity and his lack of knowledge of the truck's use, while the driver's unproved knowledge could not be inferred merely from the absence of a statement. On that basis, confiscation of the truck was held unwarranted and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when the owner was found to have no knowledge of the smuggling and there was no evidence that the person in charge knew of the smuggled character of the goods.

Analysis: Section 115(2) permits confiscation of a conveyance used for transporting smuggled goods unless the owner proves that the use was without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, his agent, or the person in charge. The impugned order itself recorded that the appellant was not involved in smuggling and that the owner lacked knowledge of the truck being used for the prohibited transport. There was also no material to show that the driver knew that the gas cylinders were smuggled, and the absence of the driver's statement did not establish the requisite knowledge.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the truck was not warranted and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable where the owner is shown to be without knowledge or connivance and there is no evidence that the person in charge knew of the smuggled nature of the goods.

---