Customs penalty for facilitating clearance through a fictitious importer upheld despite claimed lack of knowledge of misdeclaration.

Liability to personal penalty arose where an importer signed declarations as proprietor, opened a bank account in the concern's name, and signed blank forms and letterheads used to clear goods through a non-existent entity. Those acts were treated as deliberate facilitation of customs clearance, not innocent assistance, and the absence of direct handling of the bank account or later steps did not negate his material role in the misdeclaration. Personal knowledge of every subsequent act was unnecessary because his own conduct aided the attempted evasion. Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld, with no interference or reduction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was liable to personal penalty under the Customs Act for signing import-related documents and facilitating clearance of goods in the name of a non-existent entity, despite claiming lack of knowledge of the misdeclaration.

Analysis: The petitioner had signed the declaration as proprietor of the importing concern, opened a bank account in its name, and signed blank letterheads and other forms to enable clearance of the goods. These acts were not treated as innocent assistance in good faith, but as conduct undertaken to facilitate customs clearance through a fictitious entity. The absence of personal operation of the bank account or direct handling of later steps did not absolve the petitioner, because his own acts had materially aided the misdeclaration and the attempted clearance.

Conclusion: The petitioner was rightly held liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and no reduction or interference with the imposed penalty was warranted.

---