Confiscation of goods requires prior notice to the ascertainable owner; notice to the driver alone is insufficient.

Confiscation of goods transported without prescribed documents requires prior notice, inquiry and a hearing to the "person affected", meaning the ascertainable owner where beneficial interest in the goods is known. Notice to the lorry driver is not sufficient where the owner can be identified. Rule 35(4) reinforces this requirement by mandating notice to the owner when his name can be ascertained, while Rule 37 applies only at the later stage of considering payment in lieu of confiscation and does not displace the earlier notice requirement. The operative effect is that confiscation, or a demand for payment in lieu of confiscation, cannot be sustained without service on the owner.

---

---

Issues: Whether, before ordering confiscation of goods transported without the prescribed documents and before demanding payment in lieu of confiscation, notice and an opportunity of hearing must be given to the owner of the goods as the person affected, and whether notice to the lorry driver is sufficient.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 42(3) made confiscation conditional upon an inquiry and the giving of an opportunity of being heard to the person affected. The expression "person affected" was read as the person having the beneficial interest in the goods, namely the owner, where the owner was known or ascertainable. Rule 35(4) reinforced this requirement by insisting on notice to the owner when his name could be ascertained. Rule 37 was held to govern only the later stage when payment in lieu of confiscation is considered, and not to dispense with the prior mandatory notice and inquiry. As the owner was identifiable and no notice was served on him, notice to the driver could not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: Notice and hearing to the owner were mandatory before any confiscation or demand of penalty in lieu of confiscation, and the notice served only on the driver was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation of goods is subject to a statutory requirement of notice and inquiry to the "person affected", the requirement must be complied with by serving the ascertainable owner, and notice to a mere person in charge does not validly sustain the confiscation or the substituted payment.

---