Personal penalty under Customs law fails without a precise charge and clear penal clause identifying the alleged misconduct.

A personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires a clear finding of the precise offence and the exact clause attracted. A mere reference to Section 112, without specifying clause (a) or (b) or recording a definite charge and culpability, is insufficient to sustain the penalty. The text also notes that personal penalty cannot be imposed routinely and must rest on facts showing the ingredients of the penal provision; on the stated record, no allegation of concealment was made and the goods were worn on the wrist. The penalty was therefore treated as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when the adjudicating authority did not specify the exact clause or clearly record the precise charge and culpability.

Analysis: The review turned on the requirement that a penalty order must state in clear terms the exact offence committed and the particular penal clause attracted. A reference to Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 without identifying clause (a) or (b) was held insufficient to sustain the penalty, especially where the record did not disclose any allegation of concealment and the goods were worn on the wrist. The appellate order had already relied on settled case law to hold that personal penalty cannot be imposed routinely and must rest on a clear adverse finding linked to the ingredients of the relevant penal provision.

Conclusion: The personal penalty was held unsustainable, and the review seeking to upset the appellate order failed.

---