Customs penalty fails where uncorroborated statements, defective electronic evidence, and missing statutory predicates are not proved.

Consolidated Customs Act penalty was found unsustainable where the record did not prove that the appellant participated in import, misdeclaration, illicit profit-sharing, or knowing abetment. The adjudication was also vitiated by non-supply of non-relied upon documents, reliance on statements without independent corroboration, and use of electronic material from a pen drive without proper seizure support. Penalty under Section 114A could not apply because no duty or interest was demanded from the appellant, and Section 114AA was inapplicable absent proof of any false declaration, statement, or signature. The penalty was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the consolidated penalty imposed on the appellant under Sections 112(a), 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in law, and whether the adjudication suffered from denial of fair opportunity and reliance on uncorroborated material.

Analysis: The appellant was found to have introduced the importer and the actual buyer, and to have handled liaison and clearance work for remuneration. However, the record did not establish that he participated in the import of the impugned goods, arranged their misdeclaration, shared in any illicit profit, or knowingly abetted the acts rendering the goods liable to confiscation. The adjudication also proceeded without supplying non-relied upon documents, thereby affecting the opportunity of defence. Reliance on statements, including that of a co-noticee, was held insufficient in the absence of independent corroboration. The material said to have been recovered from a pen drive was not backed by proper seizure procedure, and its evidentiary value was not accepted. The order also failed to satisfy the requirements for reliance on statements under the customs evidentiary framework. Penalty under Section 114A could not stand because duty or interest was not demanded from the appellant, while Section 114AA was not attracted in the absence of proof that he made any false declaration, statement, or signature in relation to the transaction.

Conclusion: The consolidated penalty on the appellant was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was annulled, with consequential reliefs as available in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained on uncorroborated statements and improperly proved electronic material, and Sections 114A and 114AA are inapplicable unless the statutory predicates of duty liability and false declaration or document are established.

---