Knowledge-based penalties under Rule 209A require proof of awareness; truck confiscation failed without evidence of clandestine removal knowledge.

Rule 209A penal consequences require proof that the person proceeded against dealt with excisable goods with knowledge or reason to believe they were liable to confiscation. On the facts, no evidence showed that the truck owner, driver, or buyers knew of the manufacturer's alleged clandestine removal, and the driver had no duty to verify duty payment. In the absence of a proven link to the evasion, confiscation of the truck and the penalties could not be sustained and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck and penalties imposed under Rule 209A could be sustained in the absence of evidence showing knowledge of clandestine removal of excisable goods.

Analysis: Rule 209A applies only where the person sought to be penalised has dealt with goods with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation. On the facts, there was no evidence that the truck owner, the driver, or the buyers had knowledge of any clandestine removal by the manufacturer. The driver was concerned only with transport and had no legal duty to enquire into duty payment. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to the alleged evasion, the confiscation of the truck and the penalties could not be justified.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the truck and the penalties imposed under Rule 209A were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Penal consequences under Rule 209A cannot be imposed unless the record establishes knowledge or reason to believe that the person proceeded against dealt with goods liable to confiscation; mere transportation or ownership of the vehicle is insufficient.

---