Benefit of doubt defeats personal penalties where knowing involvement in illegal importation was not proved.

Personal penalties for alleged involvement in illegal importation of a seized BMW were held unsustainable where the record did not show knowing participation by the first appellant, its employees, or the broker. The car had been purchased after registration with the transport authority and payment by bank draft, and the material relied on by the department was only inferential. In the absence of concrete evidence of connivance or a separate proved role for the employee-appellants, the benefit of doubt was given and the personal penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalties imposed on the appellants for alleged involvement in the illegal importation and subsequent dealing in the seized BMW car were sustainable.

Analysis: The car had been seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, but the material on record showed that the first appellant purchased the car after it had already been registered with the transport authority and paid by bank draft. The appellants relied on the registration certificate and the broker's role in the transaction, while the department relied on inferences of connivance and the alleged fictitious ownership of the original registered owner. The record did not contain concrete evidence establishing that the first appellant or its employees had knowingly participated in the illegal import scheme, and the same absence of direct evidence also applied to the broker who acted on the basis of the registration book and bill of entry shown to him. The employee-appellants had no separate role proved against them.

Conclusion: The penalties were not sustained; the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and the personal penalties were set aside.

---