Customs penalty requires proof of culpable involvement; penalty was set aside for lack of evidence linking the director to the contravention.

Penalty under the Customs Act could not be sustained against a person where the record failed to establish his culpable involvement in the import or clearance of the goods. The appellant's appointment as director was subsequent to the import, and there was no evidence showing participation in the company's affairs at the relevant time or any material supporting mens rea. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside for want of evidence linking him to the alleged customs contravention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in the absence of evidence showing his involvement in the company's affairs at the relevant time.

Analysis: The appellant's appointment as director was shown to be subsequent to the import of the goods, and the record did not establish any participation by him in the import transactions or in the affairs of the company when the goods were sought to be cleared. The evidence was insufficient to show culpable involvement or mens rea on his part, and the material relied upon did not justify fastening penalty on him.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was dropped.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty imposed on the appellant stood set aside for want of evidence linking him to the alleged customs contravention.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained against a person unless the record establishes his culpable involvement in the relevant contravention with supporting evidence.

---