Personal penalty under Customs law cannot rest on mere lack of care without legally sustainable attribution of culpability.

Personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained on a mere inference of joint involvement or on the ground that the Chief Engineer failed to keep a watch over illegal activity aboard. Penal liability required a legally sustainable attribution of culpability to the individual, and mere absence of proper care was insufficient. On the facts found, the adjudicating authority proceeded on an incorrect legal premise, so the penalty on the appellant was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against the Chief Engineer on the basis of alleged lack of proper care and an inferred joint involvement of the crew in the concealment of contraband goods.

Analysis: The finding recorded in adjudication did not identify any individual as the actual smuggler and proceeded on a broad inference of joint involvement of the crew. The order further proceeded on the footing that the appellant, being the Chief Engineer, ought to have kept a watch over illegal activity on board. The governing provision for penal liability under section 112 required a legally sustainable basis for attribution of culpability, and mere absence of proper care was not treated as sufficient to fasten personal penalty. On the facts found, the adjudicating authority had acted on an incorrect legal premise in imposing penalty on the appellant.

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

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be imposed merely for want of proper care or on a generalized inference of responsibility without legally sustainable attribution of penal liability.

---