Penalty on technical manager unsustainable after company's misclassification finding was reversed and no separate culpability remained.

A penalty on a company's technical manager could not survive once the company's appeal had been allowed on a finding that there was no misclassification of goods with intent to evade duty. In the absence of any separate finding that the manager had played a distinct or more culpable role than the company, no independent basis remained to sustain the penalty. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the technical manager of the company could survive after the company's appeal had been allowed on the finding that there was no misclassification of goods with intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The appeal of the company had already been accepted, and the finding recorded in that order negatived misclassification of goods with intent to evade duty. In the absence of any finding that the manager had played a more prominent or independently blameworthy role than the company, no separate basis remained to sustain the penalty against him.

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

---