Vehicle confiscation requires proof of knowledge or involvement in smuggling; absence of such evidence defeats seizure of the truck.

Confiscation of a vehicle used to transport smuggled goods under the Customs Act cannot be sustained without evidence that the driver or owner knew of, or was involved in, the contraband character of the cargo. Where the record did not establish the driver's knowledge of the smuggled nature of the bundles and there was no proof of the owner's direct participation, the vehicle confiscation was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in the absence of evidence showing knowledge or involvement of the driver or owner in transporting smuggled goods.

Analysis: The confiscation was founded on the finding that the truck was used for smuggling silk fabrics of Chinese origin. The record did not show that the driver knew the bundles contained smuggled goods, and there was no evidence establishing the owner's direct involvement. In the absence of evidence linking either the driver or the owner to knowledge of the contraband character of the goods, confiscation of the vehicle could not be upheld.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the truck was set aside.

---