Confiscation upheld, but personal penalty set aside where no mala fide was shown and cargo discrepancy was marginal.

Confiscation of the logs was upheld because no one claimed the goods and the appellants did not dispute liability to confiscation. Personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside because the appellants acted as carrier agents, the record disclosed no mala fide, and the shortage and excess in the cargo largely offset each other, leaving only a marginal discrepancy of two logs. The principle applied is that confiscation may stand on the facts, but a personal penalty requires evidence of culpable conduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the logs was liable to be upheld; (ii) Whether the personal penalty imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the logs was liable to be upheld.

Analysis: The logs were not claimed by anyone, and the appellants did not dispute the confiscation. The factual position disclosed liability of the goods to confiscation.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the logs was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalty imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellants were carrier agents, and the record did not show any mala fide on their part. The shortage and excess in the cargo substantially neutralised each other, leaving only a marginal discrepancy of two logs.

Conclusion: The personal penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained to the extent of confiscation of the goods, but the personal penalty on the appellants was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of evidence of mala fide and where the cargo discrepancy is only marginal after neutralising shortage and excess, personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is unsustainable even though confiscation of the goods may stand.

---