Customs penalty for foreign-origin gold upheld where lawful import was not proved, though the penalty amount was reduced.

Foreign-origin gold biscuits in the appellant's possession were treated as liable to customs penalty because no evidence of lawful import was produced. The argument that a prior criminal conviction barred customs action was rejected, since confiscation and penalty under customs law are distinct from prosecution or punishment under another law for the same act. The commentary notes that the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was sustained on merits, but the amount was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 5,000.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act was sustainable, and whether the penalty required reduction in the absence of proof of legal import of the foreign-origin gold biscuits.

Analysis: The appellant admitted possession of foreign-origin gold biscuits, but produced no evidence of legal import. The contention that prior criminal conviction barred customs penalty was not accepted, as confiscation and penalty under customs law and prosecution or punishment under another law for the same act do not amount to punishment twice over. The impugned order therefore suffered from no legal infirmity on merits.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112 was upheld, but the amount was reduced from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 5,000.

---