Transporter penalty under customs law fails without evidence of knowledge that goods were foreign-origin or smuggled.

Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could not be sustained against a transporter where there was no material showing knowledge that the goods were of foreign origin or smuggled nature. The goods were seized from the delivery office, booking particulars had been taken at the booking office, and no enquiry established how an incomplete address was accepted. In the absence of evidence of the transporter's knowledge, the basis for fastening penal liability was not made out, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against the transporter in the absence of evidence that it had knowledge that the goods were of foreign origin or smuggled nature.

Analysis: The goods were seized from the delivery office, while the booking particulars had been taken at the booking office. No enquiry was made as to how the incomplete address was accepted, and there was no material showing that the transporter knew that the goods were foreign-origin or smuggled. In the absence of such evidence, the basis for fastening penal liability was not established.

Conclusion: Penalty on the appellant was not sustainable and was set aside.

---