Customs penalty under confiscation-linked provision fails where the facts only disclose non-accountal of goods.

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable because that provision applies only where an act or omission renders goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. On the facts, the goods were not shown to have been confiscated, and the dispute instead concerned non-accountal of goods, which falls within Section 116. The authority therefore applied the wrong penal provision, and the confiscation-linked penalty could not stand. The adjudication was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when the facts, if at all, attracted Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-accountal of goods.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 presupposes an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation, with the penalty following confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. On the facts, the goods were not shown to have been confiscated, and the case instead related to non-accountal of goods, which falls within Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The authority therefore applied the wrong penal provision.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was set aside and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the facts disclose non-accountal of goods rather than an omission rendering them liable to confiscation, penalty must be considered under the specific provision governing non-accountal and not under the confiscation-linked penal provision.

---