Carrier liability for unmanifested gold under customs law upheld, but penalty reduced for ? Actually no non-English. Need 15-20 words.

Unmanifested gold found on board an aircraft was treated as goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, and the carrier, as responsible for manifesting imported goods under Section 30, could be penalised under Section 112(a) even without proof of knowledge or mens rea. However, the show-cause notice and adjudication order did not clearly specify the exact clause of Section 112 invoked, and the matter involved the appellant's first such instance. The carrier was therefore held liable to penalty, but the original penalty was considered excessive and reduced substantially.

---

---

Issues: Whether the airline, as carrier and agent of the aircraft master, was liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for carrying unmanifested gold found on board the aircraft, and whether the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs required reduction.

Analysis: The gold was found in packets not mentioned in the import manifest, attracting confiscation under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. On that basis, the carrier, being responsible for manifesting imported goods under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962, could be visited with penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 notwithstanding the plea of absence of knowledge or mens rea. However, the show-cause notice and adjudication order did not clearly specify whether clause (a), clause (b), or both clauses of Section 112 were being invoked, and the facts showed that this was the first such instance involving the appellant. In these circumstances, the original penalty was considered excessive.

Conclusion: The appellant was held liable to penalty, but the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was set aside and reduced to Rs. 1,000.

---