Burden under Customs confiscation law requires proof of no knowledge, no connivance, and due precaution; warning notices alone are insufficient.

Section 115(2) of the Customs Act placed the burden on the owner of a conveyance to prove that smuggling occurred without knowledge or connivance and that all required precautions were taken. On the facts, concealed contraband was found in inaccessible parts of the vessel, there had been earlier similar recoveries, and the record showed incomplete cooperation during rummaging. Warning notices on board were insufficient to establish due precaution or negative knowledge. The absence of framed rules did not automatically excuse the owner, and the master's criminal acquittal did not control civil confiscation liability. The vessel was therefore held liable to confiscation and the owner failed to discharge the statutory burden.

---

---

Issues: Whether the vessel was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the owner and master had discharged the burden of proving absence of knowledge or connivance and due precaution notwithstanding the absence of framed rules and the master's acquittal in the criminal case.

Analysis: Section 115(2) cast the burden on the owner to prove that the conveyance was used for smuggling without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, agent and person in charge, and that each had taken all such precautions as were for the time being specified in the rules. On the facts, large quantities of concealed contraband were recovered from multiple inaccessible parts of the vessel, earlier similar recoveries had been made from the same ship, and the record indicated lack of full cooperation during rummaging. Mere display of warning notices on board did not, by itself, establish due precaution or negative knowledge. The absence of framed rules did not make any search automatically sufficient, and the standard had to be tested on the facts of each case. The master's acquittal of criminal charges did not determine the civil liability of the vessel under the confiscation provision, because the statutory burden under Section 115(2) lay on the owner.

Conclusion: The vessel was rightly held liable to confiscation, and the owner failed to discharge the burden under Section 115(2). The challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the owner of a conveyance seeking to avoid confiscation must affirmatively prove absence of knowledge or connivance and due precaution on the facts of the case; mere warning notices or a criminal acquittal do not suffice.

---