Section 112 Customs penalty requires independent culpability; absence of knowledge finding makes penalty unsustainable.

Limitation was not attracted because the appeal was filed within three months of the date the order was actually received, and the Revenue's communication supported delayed receipt. On penalty, liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act is distinct from confiscation under Section 115, and a penalty cannot be sustained merely because no redemption fine was imposed for the truck. In the absence of any finding that the owner knew of or was involved in carriage of foreign-origin goods, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside. The miscellaneous application was disposed of on the footing that no delay existed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was barred by limitation in view of the date of receipt of the impugned order; (ii) Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained merely because redemption fine was not imposed in relation to the truck.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was barred by limitation in view of the date of receipt of the impugned order.

Analysis: The appeal was filed within three months from the date on which the order was actually received by the appellant. The departmental communication and acceptance by the Revenue supported the appellant's version of delayed receipt of the order.

Conclusion: The appeal was not time-barred and there was no delay in filing it.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained merely because redemption fine was not imposed in relation to the truck.

Analysis: Liability to penalty under Section 112 is distinct from confiscation under Section 115. The adjudicating authority recorded no finding that the owner had knowledge of or involvement in carriage of foreign-origin goods. Penalty could not be justified solely on the ground that redemption fine was not imposed.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was disposed of as no delay was found, and the appeal succeeded with the impugned penalty order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires an independent basis of culpability and cannot be imposed merely because confiscation-related redemption fine is not levied; absence of finding on the owner's knowledge or involvement defeats such penalty.

---