Personal penalty for alleged connivance in smuggled goods storage fails without proof of knowing participation.

Personal penalty for alleged connivance in the storage of smuggled goods was found unsustainable where the authorities accepted that the godown had been let out to a named tenant and the Revenue failed to trace him. The inability to furnish the tenant's residential address, by itself, did not establish that the appellant knew the goods were smuggled or knowingly participated in their harbouring. Mere suspicion and incomplete tenant details were held insufficient to prove connivance, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable on the allegation that he had connived in the storage and harbouring of smuggled goods in his godown.

Analysis: The appellant had stated that the godown was let out on oral rent to a person named Babubhai and had given the mobile number and physical description of that person. The authorities accepted that the godown had in fact been rented out to Babubhai, and the failure of the Revenue to trace him did not, by itself, establish that the appellant knew the goods were smuggled or had connived in their storage. Mere inability to furnish the residential address of the alleged tenant was held insufficient to sustain the finding of connivance.

Conclusion: The personal penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty imposed on the appellant was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A personal penalty cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or on the claimant's inability to trace the alleged tenant where the surrounding facts do not establish knowing connivance in the storage of smuggled goods.

---