Customs penalty under section 112(b) fails where the person only routed sale proceeds and never physically dealt with goods.

Penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the person had not physically dealt with the imported goods and had only opened bank accounts and routed sale proceeds. The phrase "in any other manner dealing with" was read in context with the preceding words to require some physical dealing with goods liable to confiscation under section 111. The contrary reliance on sale proceeds was rejected because the provision cited for currency proceeds did not extend liability under section 112(b).

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on a person who had only opened bank accounts and routed sale proceeds, without physically dealing with the goods.

Analysis: The appellant had not physically handled the imported raw silk and had only facilitated movement of sale proceeds through bank accounts opened in the names of different firms. The expression "in any other manner dealing with" in section 112(b) was construed in the light of the preceding words to require some physical dealing with the goods. The principle that a person cannot be penalised under section 112(b) unless he is concerned with goods liable to confiscation under section 111 was applied. Reliance on the contrary argument based on proceeds of sale was rejected, as the cited provision dealing with currency proceeds did not support penalty under section 112(b).

Conclusion: Penalty under section 112(b) was not sustainable against the appellant.

---