Knowingly concerned with contraband requires positive evidence; prior COFEPOSA detention cannot replace proof for penalty.

Penalties for alleged contraband involvement failed because the record did not show positive evidence that either appellant knowingly accepted, carried, or dealt with the goods. Mere participation in a transport business was insufficient to establish conscious possession or reason to believe, and the assumed defect in consignor and consignee particulars did not cure the evidentiary gap. Prior COFEPOSA detention was irrelevant because it did not prove knowledge, involvement, or abetment in relation to the seized goods. The penalty orders were therefore set aside, with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were knowingly concerned with the contraband goods so as to justify the penalties imposed on them; (ii) Whether prior detention under COFEPOSA had any bearing on liability to penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were knowingly concerned with the contraband goods so as to justify the penalties imposed on them.

Analysis: The record did not contain positive evidence showing that either appellant knowingly accepted, carried, or otherwise dealt with the contraband. Their role in a transport business did not by itself establish awareness of the contents of every package handled at the office. The absence of specific evidence of knowledge or reason to believe, together with the lack of a legal requirement that consignor and consignee details be complete in the manner assumed by the Collector, left the finding of conscious involvement unsupported.

Conclusion: The finding that the appellants were knowingly concerned with the goods was not sustainable, and the penalties could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether prior detention under COFEPOSA had any bearing on liability to penalty.

Analysis: The earlier COFEPOSA detention was not connected with proof of knowledge, involvement, or abetment in relation to the seized goods, and could not supply the missing evidentiary basis for penalty.

Conclusion: The prior detention had no relevance to the imposition of penalty.

Final Conclusion: The penalty orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

---