Courier operator penalty under Customs law set aside where knowledge of importer's mis-declaration was not established.

Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed on a courier operator unless the record establishes knowledge of, or contumacious conduct in relation to, the importer's mis-declaration. The Tribunal noted that earlier proceedings had already dropped penal action, revocation of courier licence, and forfeiture of security on the basis that such awareness was not proved. On that reasoning, the penalty order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable on the courier operator for consignments mis-declared by the importer.

Analysis: The adjudicatory record shows prior proceedings and an earlier adjudication in which the penal proposals against the courier operator were dropped on the ground that the appellant did not have knowledge of the importer's mis-declaration. The proceedings for revocation of courier licence and forfeiture of security were also adjudicated and dropped on the basis that awareness of the importer's wrongdoing by the courier operator was not established. The Tribunal examined whether the material on record establishes contumacious conduct or knowledge on the part of the courier operator sufficient to attract Section 112(a)(ii) penal liability under the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not imposable on the courier operator; the impugned order imposing the penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Absence of knowledge or contumacious conduct by a courier operator in relation to an importer's mis-declaration precludes imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

---