Personal penalty for misdeclared cargo requires proof of knowledge or complicity, not mere custody of the goods.

A transporter could not be personally penalised for misdeclared cargo absent evidence of knowledge or participation in the misdeclaration. The record showed that consignments were booked on the basis of consignors' declarations, and the transporter was not obliged to open packages and verify contents. Mere recovery of the packages from the transporter's premises was held insufficient, by itself, to establish complicity or conscious involvement. The penalty was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transporter could be subjected to personal penalty for misdeclared cargo in the absence of evidence showing its knowledge of, or involvement in, the misdeclaration.

Analysis: The transporter stated that it booked consignments on the basis of declarations made by consignors and was not required to open packages and verify their contents. The record disclosed no evidence connecting the transporter with the misdeclaration. Mere discovery of the packages from the transporter's premises, without more, was held insufficient to infer knowledge or complicity.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---