Knowledge of smuggled goods is essential for confiscation and penalty; truck seizure failed for lack of awareness.

Confiscation of a truck carrying cardamom and the accompanying personal penalty were found unsustainable where there was no material showing that the driver or owner knew the goods were smuggled. The record did not establish awareness of any incriminating character of the cargo, and the transporter was not expected to investigate the legality of the cardamom's acquisition or possession by the person hiring the truck. In the absence of knowledge of the smuggled nature of the goods, the essential basis for confiscation and penalty was not made out, and both were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck and imposition of personal penalty were sustainable when there was no material to show that the driver or owner knew that the goods transported were smuggled.

Analysis: The truck was confiscated on the footing that it carried smuggled cardamom, and a penalty was imposed on the appellant as the father of the minor owner of the truck. The record did not show that the driver or the owner had knowledge of any incriminating character of the goods. Cardamom is a freely available commodity, and the transporter was not expected to investigate the legality of its acquisition or possession by the person engaging the truck for carriage. In the absence of awareness of the smuggled nature of the goods, the basis for invoking confiscation and penalty was not made out.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act and the penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---