Knowingly transporting offending goods is essential for conveyance confiscation; ambiguous knowledge is insufficient under customs law.

Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act requires material showing that the owner or his agent knowingly participated in transporting smuggled or otherwise offending goods. On the facts, the goods were accompanied by documents and had been assessed by customs as a licit import, and the only reliance was an ambiguous statement that the co-driver had heard the goods were of foreign origin. That did not establish conscious knowledge of offending goods, and the co-driver could not safely be treated as the owner's agent for this purpose. Confiscation of the truck was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act was justified in the absence of proof that the owner or his agent knowingly transported offending goods.

Analysis: The confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) required material showing that the owner or his agent had knowledge of, or was complicit in, the carriage of smuggled or otherwise offending goods. The record showed that the goods were accompanied by documentation and had been assessed by customs as a licit import. The only material relied upon was an ambiguous statement that the co-driver had heard the goods were of foreign origin, which did not establish conscious knowledge of offending goods, and the co-driver could not safely be treated as the owner's agent for this purpose.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the truck under Section 115(2) was not justified and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of a conveyance for smuggled goods is unsustainable unless the owner or his agent is shown to have knowingly participated in the transport of offending goods.

---