Customs penalty for unauthorised import sustained despite bona fide mistake, with reduced penalty and no mandatory mens rea bar.

Unauthorised import of goods without a valid licence covering their origin was treated as liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, supporting penalty under Section 112. Release of the goods on bond did not bar separate penal action, as the bond terms operated alongside customs enforcement. The absence of deliberate intent did not eliminate liability, because mens rea was not treated as an invariable prerequisite for penalty in the circumstances. The bona fide mistake and surrounding facts justified a lenient approach, so the penalty was sustained but reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was justified for importation of goods without a valid licence, and whether the absence of deliberate intent barred imposition of penalty.

Analysis: The goods were imported without a valid licence covering their origin, and the import was therefore unauthorised and liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The fact that the goods had been released on bond did not exclude penal action in addition to enforcement of the bond terms. The question of mens rea was considered in the light of the nature of penalty proceedings and the surrounding facts. While the circumstances disclosed a bona fide mistake and some scope for leniency, they did not establish that no penalty was warranted. The penalty could therefore be sustained, though a more lenient view was appropriate.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112 was maintainable, but the amount deserved reduction; the contention that no penalty could be imposed for want of mens rea was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs penalty matters, unauthorised importation liable to confiscation may justify penalty even where the importer acts under a bona fide mistake, and mens rea is not invariably a prerequisite.

---