Reasonable precaution defeats confiscation where transport is backed by an invoice showing duty payment, despite later ledger discrepancies.

A tempo van was not liable to confiscation where the driver carried the manufacturer's invoice showing duty payment, because the statutory requirement of reasonable precaution was satisfied on the facts. The later discovery that duty had not actually been debited in the manufacturer's personal ledger did not defeat that protection, since the driver or owner could not reasonably be expected to verify the manufacturer's internal records during transport. Confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, as applied in proceedings under the Central Excises & Salt Act, was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tempo van was liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 as applied to proceedings under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 when the driver carried an invoice showing payment of duty.

Analysis: The driver had taken the precaution of carrying the manufacturer's invoice showing duty payment. The subsequent discovery that duty had not in fact been debited in the personal ledger account did not mean that the driver or owner had failed to take reasonable precaution, since they could not be expected to verify the manufacturer's internal duty payment records at the time of transport. On these facts, the statutory requirement of reasonable precaution was satisfied and the vehicle was not liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation was not sustainable and the vehicle was not liable to confiscation.

---