Customs confiscation requires proof of a specially designed concealment cavity; unsupported allegations and no contraband defeated the action.

Confiscation of a fishing vessel under the customs provisions depended on proof that the vessel contained a specially designed concealment cavity intended for smuggling. The alleged cavity was not supported by expert evidence, no contraband was recovered, and the defence that such cavities were usual in fishing vessels remained unrebutted. On those facts, reasonable doubt arose as to whether the confiscatory provision applied, and the confiscation and personal penalty were not justified and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the vessel and the personal penalty imposed on the appellant were sustainable in the absence of evidence that the cavity found in the fishing vessel was an unusual or specially designed concealment chamber for smuggling.

Analysis: To sustain action under the relevant customs provision, it had to be shown that the vessel contained a cavity not ordinarily found in a fishing vessel and that it was designed for concealment and smuggling purposes. No contraband was recovered, the alleged cavity was not supported by expert evidence, and the specific defence that such a cavity was usual in fishing vessels remained uncontroverted. These circumstances created reasonable doubt as to the applicability of the confiscatory provision.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the personal penalty were not justified and were set aside.

---