Customs penalty for forged licences requires proof of knowledge or culpable involvement, not mere suspicion.

Penalty under the Customs Act for use of forged or bogus licences cannot be sustained unless corroborative evidence proves the noticees had knowledge of, or active involvement in, the prohibited clearance. The record did not show any material establishing that the appellants knew the licences were forged before the goods were cleared, and the Customs authorities had themselves examined the licences and permitted clearance. In the absence of proof of culpable knowledge or participation, the legal basis for penal action was not made out, so penalty under Section 112A was not imposable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when there was no corroborative evidence that the appellants had knowledge of the forged or bogus licences used for clearance of goods.

Analysis: The statements and record did not disclose any corroborative material showing that the appellants knew of the forged licences before the goods were cleared. The Customs authorities themselves had examined the licences and allowed the clearances. In the absence of proof of knowledge or active involvement in the use of bogus documents, the basis for penal action was not established.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112A was not imposable on the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for customs violations based on forged documents cannot be sustained unless knowledge or culpable involvement in the prohibited act is proved by corroborative evidence.

---