Penalty reduction for unproved contravention with non-cooperation in investigation justified a lesser penalty.

A penalty cannot be sustained in full where the record does not establish a fully proved contravention attributable to the noticee, even if the goods were intercepted before reaching the alleged recipient. The tribunal noted that the appellant failed to cooperate with repeated summonses and did not appear to record a statement, which justified some penal consequence. The original penalty was therefore reduced to a commensurate amount, and the reduced penalty remained payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the noticee was sustainable in full, and if not, what quantum of penalty was justified.

Analysis: The appellant was stated to be the person expected to receive the goods, but the seized black pepper was intercepted before it reached him. No other appellant appeared to defend the matter, and the material on record did not establish a specific contravention attributable to the appellant sufficient to sustain the original penalty in normal course. At the same time, the record showed that the appellant had been summoned on several occasions but did not cooperate with the investigation or appear to record his statement, warranting some penal consequence.

Conclusion: The original penalty was not sustained in full and was reduced to Rs. 20,000/-.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalty, with the appellant remaining liable to pay the reduced amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record does not establish a fully proved contravention justifying the original penalty, but the noticee's non-cooperation with investigation is evident, the penalty may be reduced to a commensurate amount rather than maintained in full.

---