Judgment :- K. VEERASWAMI, C.J. We are of opinion that the appeals should be allowed. A lorry carrying 50 bags of cloves was seized in its way from Paramathi to Salem. The bundles were marked as 'gose' bundles (cabbage) 3 tons in the trip sheet of the lorry. The entries in the trip sheet were made by one Kalian, but without physical verification of the goods as to whether they were cabbage or any other goods. The cleaner, one Thameez, and another by name Raju were sitting in the cabin of the lorry. The goods were eventually confiscated as contraband goods which had escaped duty. The lorry was piloted by a car. On the view that the lorry was used for transporting contraband goods it was released on payment of Rs. 2000/-. But the car was not confiscated. According to the Customs, when the lorry was taken hold of, the piloting car returned to the spot and the occupants therein, father-in-law and son-in-law who are the appellants, claimed the goods as theirs. On this basis, finding that the two appellants had complicity in the revenue offence, penalties were imposed on them a sum of Rs. 5000/- on the first appellant and a sum of Rs. 2500/- on the second appellant, under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3(2) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 2.Ramaprasada Rao J., proceeded upon the footing that Alagirisamy J. while issuing Rule Nisi had found that both the men were involved in the offence of importation of prohibited goods. So, the question, according to the learned Judge was confined to the penalties. He thought that imposition of the penalties was neither capricious nor arbitrary. 3.Therefore, he dismissed the petitions. Hence these Appeals. On a consideration of the records, we are of opinion that the Department has not established by any evidence that the goods were of foreign origin, that they were imported, and that they had escaped tax. The seizure was far away from the Customs border. The two appellants disclaimed any connection with the goods. Assuming that they were connected with the goods which we do not find at the moment, it is for the Department to show that the cloves contained in the bags were of foreign origin. It is common knowledge that cloves are also available in our country. The two appellants disclaimed any connection with the goods. Assuming that they were connected with the goods which we do not find at the moment, it is for the Department to show that the cloves contained in the bags were of foreign origin. It is common knowledge that cloves are also available in our country. In such circumstances, in the absence of clear evidence that the cloves were imported and that they escaped duty, we cannot say that they were contraband goods. The necessity for clear proof is all the more necessary, when the goods were not seized at or near the customs frontiers, but far away from them. The fact that no explanation was forthcoming from any as to the origin of the goods, will not be proof that they were contraband goods. There may be other reasons why such information was not available or could not be got. 4.On that view of the matter we consider that the penalties imposed upon the appellant cannot be sustained. The appeals are allowed. No costs.