Penalty for misdelivery of imported goods fails where the driver's mistake caused delivery and no mala fides by the appellant was shown.

Penalty for alleged misdelivery of imported goods was held unsustainable where the earliest statement of the driver did not implicate the appellant, the goods were delivered at the importer's premises because of the driver's mistake, and the appellant had instructed delivery only at the ICD. The record disclosed no mala fides or culpable conduct by the appellant, and the claim that the delivery document was faint or illegible did not justify penalty on these facts. The penalty was therefore set aside, with the principle that misdelivery caused by a driver's error does not warrant penal action absent proof of wrongdoing by the consignor.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was exigible for alleged misdelivery of imported goods away from the ICD and for failure to properly guide the truck driver.

Analysis: The driver's statement, recorded at the earliest point of time, did not implicate the appellant. The goods were found to have been delivered at the importer's premises because of the driver's mistake, which had been accepted by the adjudicating authority. The appellant had instructed delivery only at the ICD, and no mala fides could be attributed to the appellant. The fact that the document was said to be faint or illegible did not support imposition of penalty, since an illiterate driver could not have read it in any event.

Conclusion: Penalty was not warranted and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was held not liable to penalty for the misdelivery of the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty cannot be sustained in the absence of mala fides or culpable conduct where the misdelivery resulted from the driver's mistake and the appellant had directed delivery only at the specified destination.

---