Knowledge requirement for confiscation and penalty: purchaser's lack of awareness of duty liability defeated enforcement.

Confiscation of branded goods and penalty on a purchaser could not be sustained where the purchaser had bought the goods under proper invoices and stated that he was unaware of their excisability. The essential element of knowledge that the goods were cleared without payment of duty, or were liable to confiscation, was not established on the record. In the absence of proof of such knowledge, confiscation and the consequential penalty were held unjustified and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of goods and penalty on a purchaser was sustainable when the purchaser stated that he was not aware of the excisability of the branded goods.

Analysis: The statement of the proprietor recorded on the spot showed that the goods had been purchased under proper invoices and that he was not aware of the excisability of the branded goods. In the absence of evidence that the purchaser knew that the goods were cleared without payment of duty or that they were liable to confiscation, the essential element of knowledge was not established. On that basis, the confiscation and the consequential penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the goods and the penalty were not justified and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned confiscation and penalty were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation and penalty depend on the purchaser's knowledge of the goods' dutiable character or liability to confiscation, the department must prove such knowledge; in its absence, confiscation and penalty cannot stand.

---