Separate quantification of composite penalties under distinct statutes is required to test legality and appellate scrutiny.

A composite penalty imposed in one lump sum for contraventions under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was held unsustainable because the adjudicating authority did not specify the separate amount attributable to each enactment. Where liability arises under distinct statutes, the penalty must be separately quantified and apportioned under each law so its legality can be examined independently, including on appeal. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for re-adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether a composite penalty imposed in one lump sum under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, without specifying the separate quantum attributable to each enactment, was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty order imposed a consolidated sum on each appellant for contravention of two distinct enactments. Such a composite levy does not disclose the amount relatable to each statute. Where liability is founded on contraventions under separate enactments, the adjudicating authority must specify and apportion the penalty under each law so that the legality of the penalty can be examined independently, including in appellate proceedings.

Conclusion: The composite penalty was unsustainable in law, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction for re-adjudication.

---