Penal liability in customs matters requires proof of knowledge or culpable participation; penalty against the shipping agent was set aside.

Penal liability in customs matters cannot be sustained against a shipping agent or carrier without evidence of knowledge, intention, or culpable participation in the alleged violation. The record showed only that the appellant carried consignments in containers and ships; it did not establish awareness of any customs breach or conduct warranting penalty. The inspection certificate's validity was not the decisive issue. On the facts found, the absence of material showing mens rea or culpability made the penalty unsustainable, and the penalties were set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained against the shipping agent in the absence of evidence showing knowledge or intention to violate customs law.

Analysis: The appellant carried the consignments in containers and ships, but there was no material showing that it knew of, or intended, any violation of customs requirements. The validity of the inspection certificate produced was not posed upon, and the decisive question was whether the appellant's conduct justified penal consequences. On the facts found, the record did not establish culpability warranting penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the penalties imposed on the appellant were annulled with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Penal liability in customs matters cannot be sustained against a carrier or agent absent evidence of knowledge, intention, or culpable participation in the alleged violation.

---