Penalty for export misdeclaration requires proof of conscious involvement, not mere reliance on supplier documents.

Penalty on air cargo agents for misdeclaration in export documents was held unsustainable where there was no direct evidence of knowledge, conscious involvement, or active participation in the declaration. The shipping bills were prepared on the exporter's documents, the agents had no occasion to inspect the consignments before filing, and the related misdeclaration was treated as a genuine mistake arising from faulty communication rather than a secret arrangement or ulterior motive. Because penalty proceedings are penal in character, proof of culpable intention was necessary, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty on the air cargo agents for the misdeclaration in the export documents was sustainable in the absence of direct evidence of knowledge or involvement.

Analysis: The goods were found not to correspond with the description in the shipping bills and were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. However, the record showed that the misdeclaration was treated in the connected exporter's appeal as a genuine mistake arising from faulty communication, with no secret arrangement or ulterior motive found. The appellants had prepared the shipping bills on the basis of documents supplied by the exporter, had no occasion to inspect the consignments before presentation, and there was no direct evidence showing knowledge of the incorrect description or active participation in the wrongful declaration. Since penalty proceedings are penal in character, proof of culpable intention or conscious involvement was necessary.

Conclusion: The penalty on the appellants was not sustainable and was set aside.

---