https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46431 Section 115(2) of the Customs Act placed the burden on the owner of a conveyance to prove that smuggling occurred without knowledge or connivance and that all required precautions were taken. On the facts, concealed contraband was found in inaccessible parts of the vessel, there had been earlier similar recoveries, and the record showed incomplete cooperation during rummaging. Warning notices on board were insufficient to establish due precaution or negative knowledge. The absence of framed rules did not automatically excuse the owner, and the master's criminal acquittal did not control civil confiscation liability. The vessel was therefore held liable to confiscation and the owner failed to discharge the statutory burden. en-us Mon, 13 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:26:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46431 Section 115(2) of the Customs Act placed the burden on the owner of a conveyance to prove that smuggling occurred without knowledge or connivance and that all required precautions were taken. On the facts, concealed contraband was found in inaccessible parts of the vessel, there had been earlier similar recoveries, and the record showed incomplete cooperation during rummaging. Warning notices on board were insufficient to establish due precaution or negative knowledge. The absence of framed rules did not automatically excuse the owner, and the master's criminal acquittal did not control civil confiscation liability. The vessel was therefore held liable to confiscation and the owner failed to discharge the statutory burden. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 13 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46431