Confiscation of conveyance under Customs law requires knowledge of smuggled goods; mere tax evasion suspicion is insufficient.

Section 115(2) of the Customs Act permits confiscation of a conveyance only when it is used as a means of transporting smuggled goods and the owner, agent, or person in charge had knowledge or connivance. Mere awareness of possible sales tax evasion is not enough to establish the requisite knowledge of smuggling. On the facts recorded, the driver and cleaner were only told about tax evasion concerns, and there was no finding that they knew the goods were smuggled. The CESTAT, New Delhi therefore held that the truck was not liable to confiscation and set aside the confiscation order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the truck was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act in the absence of proof that the owner, his agent, or the person in charge knew of the smuggled nature of the goods.

Analysis: Liability to confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) arises only where the vehicle is used as a means of transport in smuggling of goods. The provision also protects the owner where the conveyance was used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, his agent, or the person in charge. On the record, the driver and cleaner were only informed about possible evasion of sales tax, and there was no finding that they knew the goods were smuggled.

Conclusion: The truck was not liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, and the confiscation was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the confiscation order could not be sustained, with consequential relief following.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act requires proof of knowledge of the smuggled nature of the goods by the owner, his agent, or the person in charge, and mere awareness of sales tax evasion is insufficient.

---