Carrier penalty for shortlanding requires clear proof and cannot rest on mechanical assumptions where control was lost after discharge.

Penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act is attracted only where the carrier's failure to unload or shortage is not satisfactorily accounted for to customs. On the stated facts, the cargo was removed under the control of port and defence authorities pursuant to government directions, proper tally records were not maintained, and the carrier had no effective control after discharge. The shortlanding shown in the out-turn reports was therefore not a reliable basis for mechanical penalty. The note also emphasises that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal and require more than a technical default; surrounding circumstances and any deliberate or contumacious conduct must be considered.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against the carrier when the goods were removed under the control of the Port/Embarkation authorities without proper tally or documentation, and the alleged shortlanding was not established against the carrier with certainty.

Analysis: Section 116 fastens liability on the person in charge of the conveyance only where the failure to unload or the deficiency is not accounted for to the satisfaction of the customs authority. The materials showed that the cargo was handled and removed under the control of the Port and defence authorities pursuant to government directions, that proper records and tally reports were not maintained, and that the carrier had no effective control after discharge of the goods. The shortage shown in the out-turn reports was therefore not a reliable basis to impose penalty mechanically. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and do not follow merely from a technical default; they require consideration of the surrounding circumstances and the element of deliberate or contumacious conduct.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 116 could not be validly imposed on the carrier on the facts of the case, and the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

---