Customs duty recoverable from auction sale proceeds, but Section 112 penalty fails without confiscation or culpable involvement.

Customs and central excise dues were held recoverable from the sale proceeds of auctioned machinery because the duty liability had already been upheld and could not be reopened. The Tribunal maintained that the recorded commitment that departmental dues would be met from the sale proceeds remained operative, so the appellant was bound to discharge the dues from those proceeds. Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was set aside because the machinery was not confiscated and there was no factual basis showing the appellant's participation in conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation. The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deleting the penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was liable to discharge the customs and central excise duties from the sale proceeds of the machinery auctioned by it. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was liable to discharge the customs and central excise duties from the sale proceeds of the machinery auctioned by it.

Analysis: The duty demand was held to survive because the higher court had already recorded that the dues payable to the Department were to be met from the sale proceeds, and the subsequent appellate pronouncement confirmed that the respondent auction purchaser was not liable but the recorded commitment of the State Financial Corporation remained relevant. In that background, the Tribunal held that the appellant could not reopen the issue of duty liability and that the customs and central excise dues were payable out of the proceeds realised from the sale of the assets.

Conclusion: The liability to pay the customs and central excise duties was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 112 requires involvement in acts rendering goods liable to confiscation. The machinery had not been confiscated, and the appellant had not imported the goods or otherwise engaged in the offending import activity. In the absence of confiscation and the necessary factual foundation for invoking Section 112, the penalty was found to be legally untenable.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of deletion of penalty, while the direction to discharge the duty liability out of the sale proceeds was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained unless the person proceeded against is shown to have participated in conduct rendering goods liable to confiscation, whereas duty liability may still be enforced from sale proceeds where that liability has been upheld and recorded by the competent court.

---