Concealment and transporter knowledge are essential before confiscation or penalty in contraband cases

Confiscation of goods under section 119 of the Customs Act requires proof that the goods were used for concealment of contraband, not merely that they were found with the contraband. On the facts, no evidence showed that the jute bales were used to hide the offending goods, so confiscation was set aside. Personal penalty on a transporter requires evidence of knowledge of the smuggled nature of the goods or involvement in the offence. As the record disclosed no such knowledge or participation, the penalty was also set aside. The appeal therefore succeeded in full, with both confiscation and penalty annulled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the jute bales found in the truck could be confiscated as articles used for concealment of contraband goods under section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether personal penalty could be imposed on the transporter in the absence of evidence showing knowledge or involvement in transportation of the contraband goods.

Issue (i): Whether the jute bales found in the truck could be confiscated as articles used for concealment of contraband goods under section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Confiscation under section 119 requires material showing that the goods were used for concealment, and not merely that they were present along with the contraband goods. The distinction between concealment and mere coverage is material. On the facts, no evidence established that the jute bales were used to conceal the contraband items.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the jute bales was not justified and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether personal penalty could be imposed on the transporter in the absence of evidence showing knowledge or involvement in transportation of the contraband goods.

Analysis: Penalty on a carrier requires evidence linking the transporter with knowledge of the smuggled nature of the goods or participation in the offending act. The record disclosed no evidence of such knowledge or involvement, and a transporter is not expected to verify the contents of packages to ensure they are not smuggled goods.

Conclusion: The personal penalty on the transporter was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, with both confiscation and penalty annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: For confiscation under section 119, the department must prove use of goods for concealment, and personal penalty on a transporter cannot be sustained without evidence of knowledge or involvement.

---