Personal penalty requires proof of knowledge or involvement; good-faith receipt for repair was insufficient here.

Personal penalty was found unsustainable where the record did not establish the mechanic's knowledge of, or involvement in, the importation or contraband character of the diesel engine. His explanation that he received the engine from the Tahsildar for repair, and handled it in good faith without role in importation, was accepted. The confiscation of the engine remained in place, but the personal penalty was set aside, giving the appellant partial relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether personal penalty was sustainable on the appellant in relation to the imported diesel engine.

Analysis: The appellant was a mechanic who stated that he had received the engine for repair from the Tahsildar and had no role in the importation of the engine. The record did not show that he had any connection with the import of the engine or any knowledge of its contraband nature. On the facts, his explanation that he took the engine in good faith for repair was accepted.

Conclusion: Personal penalty was not warranted and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation of the engine remained undisturbed, but the personal penalty was annulled, resulting in a partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty cannot be sustained where the record does not establish the appellant's knowledge of, or involvement in, the importation or contraband character of the goods and the goods were received and handled in good faith.

---