Judgment :- This writ petition coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 15th October 1963 upon perusing the petition and that affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 7-9-1961 and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records in D.A. Dis. VIII/10/289/58-59 Cus. Adj. 053979E 17-9-1959 on the file of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras relating to the order dated 17-9-1959 and comprised in the return of the respondent herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Parasaran, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. S. Mohan for the Addl. Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following order : 2.The petitioner is the owner of a car MSP 5167. On 30-6-1959, the Customs Mobile party inspected this car. It was then carrying certain persons. On a search of the car it was found that these persons were carrying gold jewellery and in respect of this incident proceedings for contravention of section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Order, 1947 read with section 19 of the Sea Customs Act were set on foot against these persons. The petitioner was not, however, in the car. Nevertheless a notice was also issued to him to show cause why the car used for the removal of the gold jewellery should not be confiscated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with section 168 of the Act. The petitioner tendered some explanation, to the contents of which it is not necessary to refer. Finally, the Collector of Central Excise made an order confiscating the car. He permitted the owner to redeem the car on payment of a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 3.This order of the Collector of Central Excise is attacked in this writ petition, the principal contention of the petitioner being that he has not been given any opportunity of putting forward his case, and further that the explanation which he tendered in reply to the notice under Section 167(8) has not even been considered by the authorities. Another ground was advanced, namely, that since the petitioner has not been found to have possessed any guilty intention with regard to the conveyance of smuggled or contraband goods, his car should not have been ordered to be confiscated. Another ground was advanced, namely, that since the petitioner has not been found to have possessed any guilty intention with regard to the conveyance of smuggled or contraband goods, his car should not have been ordered to be confiscated. These are the two grounds which have been advanced by Mr. Parasaran at the hearing of the petition. 4.On the second of the above two grounds, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel that the department is required to establish any mens rea in a case of this kind. Section 168 renders every means of conveyance used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under the Act equally liable to confiscation. It is settled law that vehicles so employed are "condemned" and it is not necessary in such a case that it should be further established that the owner of the vehicle had the guilty intent of using his conveyance for such a purpose. The order of confiscation can therefore, be made without a finding of that description. 5.On the question whether the petitioner's representations were considered, I agree with the learned counsel that the Collector of Central Excise seems to have totally ignored that the owner of the car had been given a notice and that he had submitted explanation of some sort. With the merits of the explanation, I am not concerned. The entirety of order does not say anything about the owner or his version as to how his car happened to come into the possession of the persons found travelling by that car. The only reference to the owner is found in the last paragraph, where the Customs Collector directed the confiscation of the car and directed the "owner" to redeem the car on payment of a fine. Even in the preamble to the order, the fact that a show cause notice had been given to the owner, is not mentioned. It is clear, therefore, that the very purpose for which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the owner of the car, has been defeated and the owner has been deprived of the property, that is, the car, without his case being heard. It is clear, therefore, that the very purpose for which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the owner of the car, has been defeated and the owner has been deprived of the property, that is, the car, without his case being heard. It should, therefore, follow that the order of confiscation cannot be sustained, for there was no real opportunity given to the petitioner to state what he had to say.6.Though I have stated earlier that the question of guilty intent is not relevant, that observation is limited to the liability of confiscation of the car. Mens rea may otherwise become relevant in considering the quantum of the penalty, that is, the redemption fine, which the authority is competent to impose. Support for this view is found in a decision of this court in Syed Cassim v. The Collector of Central Excise Madras, (1) LXXV L.W. 276. It would be open to the Collector of Central Excise to examine the contention of the petitioner and to determine whether even in inflicting the penalty of confiscation, the quantum of the redemption fine should not depend upon the extent to which he found the petitioner to have been a party to the offence of smuggling. 7.Subject to these observations, the petition is allowed. The rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.