Vehicle confiscation requires proof of knowledge or connivance; absence of such evidence defeated penalty and confiscation.

Confiscation of a vehicle and imposition of penalty were sustainable only where the vehicle was used to carry contraband and the owner had knowledge of, connived in, or failed to take reasonable precautions against such use. On the facts discussed, the show cause notice and record did not establish those ingredients for action under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was inapplicable because the appellants were not manufacturers of the goods, and there was no evidence that they knew or had reason to believe the vehicle would be used to transport goods liable to confiscation. No material showed knowing participation or connivance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of penalty were justified in the absence of proof that the vehicle was used for carrying excisable goods with the owner's knowledge or connivance and in the absence of evidence that the owner failed to take reasonable precautions.

Analysis: Confiscation of the vehicle could be sustained only if the vehicle was shown to have been used for carrying contraband and if the owner was shown to have knowledge of, connived in, or failed to take reasonable precautions against such use. The show cause notice and the record did not establish the necessary ingredients for action under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be inapplicable because the appellants were not the manufacturers of the goods, and there was no evidence that they knew or had reason to believe that the vehicle would be used for transport of goods liable to confiscation. No material was produced to show knowing participation or connivance by the appellants.

Conclusion: The vehicle was not liable to confiscation and the appellants were not liable to penalty.

---