Customs penalty unsustainable where mistaken shipment was disclosed early and bill of entry was filed only for re-export.

Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was held unsustainable where goods were received by mistake, Customs had already been informed, and the bill of entry was filed only to facilitate re-export. The Tribunal treated the filing as a limited procedural step rather than an assertion of ownership or a basis for culpability. In the absence of any recorded reason showing why penalty was imposed, no penal liability was made out. The penalty order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act was sustainable where the goods were received by mistake, the bill of entry was filed only for the limited purpose of re-export, and no specific reason for penalty was recorded.

Analysis: The appellant had not sought the goods and had informed Customs of the mistaken shipment before filing the bill of entry. The filing of the bill of entry was treated as having been done only to facilitate re-export. The Tribunal noted that it was not concerned with confiscation, as the appellant did not seek redemption of the goods. On the material before it, there was no disclosed basis for penal liability, and the order imposing penalty did not specify the reason for doing so.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of the penalty, with consequential relief following.

Ratio Decidendi: Filing a bill of entry solely for the purpose of re-export, after prior disclosure to Customs that the shipment was received by mistake, does not by itself justify penalty in the absence of recorded grounds showing culpability.

---