Customs penalty liability depends on who actually imports and clears goods; licence holder alone is not liable under Section 147.

For customs penalty purposes, the person who actually arranges shipment, files the bill of entry, and completes clearance formalities is treated as the importer. Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 applies only where a required act is done by another person at the importer's instance; it does not extend penal liability to a licence holder or alleged principal merely by reason of that status. Because the offending import without a valid licence was carried out by the letter-of-authority holder, the appellant could not be penalised. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and the appeals succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, as alleged principal, was liable to penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 for importation carried out by the letter-of-authority holder.

Analysis: The import, for purposes of the Customs Act, was carried out by the letter-of-authority holder who arranged the shipment, filed the bill of entry, and undertook clearance formalities. The scheme of the Import Policy and the Customs Act treated the acting agent as the importer for customs purposes, while Section 147 applied only where an act required of an importer, owner, or exporter was done by another person at his instance. Since the offending act of importing goods without a valid licence was done by the agent and not by the appellant, the appellant could not be treated as the importer for penalty purposes. The reference to 'owner' in Section 147 did not alter that position.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable and the appeals succeeded, with consequential relief following.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs penalty purposes, the person who actually performs the importation and clearance acts is the importer, and liability under Section 147 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not extend penal responsibility to another person merely because that person is the licence holder or alleged principal.

---