Customs penalty requires cogent evidence of direct or attributable involvement in filing incorrect shipping bills; unsupported findings fail.

Penalty under the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the record did not contain cogent evidence linking the appellant to the filing of incorrect shipping bills or to any employee's alleged misconduct. The adjudicating authority's attribution of responsibility under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations was found unsupported by evidence, and no direct or legally attributable involvement in the impugned export transactions was established. On that basis, the penal consequence could not be justified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained in the absence of evidence linking the appellant to the filing of incorrect shipping bills and the alleged acts of the employee.

Analysis: The penalty was examined against the recorded statements and the surrounding material. The appellant had denied involvement in filing incorrect shipping bills, and the record did not show that any employee of the appellant had participated in the alleged misconduct. The findings of the adjudicating authority attributing responsibility to the appellant under Regulation 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 were found to be unsupported by evidence. In the absence of proof connecting the appellant with the impugned export transactions, the penal consequence could not be justified.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under the Customs Act cannot be upheld unless the record contains cogent evidence establishing the appellant's direct or legally attributable involvement in the offending act.

---