Conveyance confiscation requires reliable proof of smuggling use and owner knowledge or connivance before liability can stand.

Section 115(2) of the Customs Act permits confiscation of a conveyance only when reliable evidence shows that it was used as a means of smuggling or for carrying smuggled goods. On the material described, a general statement about a trawler being used to land contraband silver was found too vague, as it lacked particulars linking the vessel to the alleged smuggling. Confiscation also could not be sustained against the owner because there was no proof of his knowledge, involvement, or connivance, and his explanation was not effectively contradicted. The document states that confiscation was therefore not justified on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the vessel was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged use in smuggling, and (ii) whether confiscation could be sustained in the absence of proof of the owner's knowledge or connivance.

Issue (i): whether the vessel was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged use in smuggling.

Analysis: Section 115(2) brings a conveyance within the scope of confiscation if it is used as a means of transport in smuggling or in the carriage of smuggled goods. The only material relied upon was a statement containing a general reference to the use of a trawler in landing contraband silver, but it gave no particulars of date, quantity, or clear linkage sufficient to establish that the vessel was used for smuggling.

Conclusion: The alleged use of the vessel for smuggling was not proved with sufficient certainty, so confiscation was not justified on that basis.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation could be sustained in the absence of proof of the owner's knowledge or connivance.

Analysis: The owner's explanation that the vessel had been left in the charge of another person, had not returned on time, and was later recovered, was not effectively contradicted. The person in charge did not implicate the owner or his agent, and there was no independent evidence of the owner's knowledge, involvement, or connivance in the alleged smuggling.

Conclusion: Confiscation could not be sustained against the owner in the absence of proof of knowledge or connivance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the material on record did not establish, to the required legal standard, that the vessel was proved to have been used for smuggling or that the owner was implicated in the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: A conveyance cannot be confiscated for smuggling unless its use in smuggling is proved by reliable evidence, and confiscation against the owner cannot be sustained without proof of knowledge or connivance where the statutory exception applies.

---