Conveyance confiscation requires proof of knowledge or connivance; mere lack of precautions is insufficient under customs law.

Confiscation of a conveyance under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires a finding that the owner, agent or person in charge had knowledge of, or connived in, the smuggling use of the vehicle. Where the record contains no specific finding on knowledge or connivance, confiscation is not sustainable. A bare observation that the owners or drivers failed to take necessary precautions is insufficient unless the required precautions and the alleged culpability are identified with particulars. On the stated facts, confiscation of the trucks was held unjustified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the trucks was sustainable under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the absence of a specific finding that the owners, drivers or khalasis had knowledge of or connived in the smuggling use of the conveyance.

Analysis: Section 115(2) permits confiscation of a conveyance used in smuggling or in carrying smuggled goods, but confiscation is not justified where the conveyance is used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, his agent, or the person in charge. The order under challenge did not record any specific finding establishing such knowledge or connivance on the part of the truck owners or the persons in charge. The observation that the owners and drivers had not taken necessary precaution was found insufficient in the absence of particulars showing what precaution was required or how they were culpable.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the trucks was not justified and was set aside.

---