Quasi-criminal penalty under Customs law requires positive evidence; uncorroborated statements and uncertain recovery were insufficient.

Personal penalty under the Customs Act was held unsustainable where the alleged possession and delivery of seized computer parts were not proved by specific recovery from the appellant's exclusive possession, the seizure memo did not identify the exact place of recovery, and the case rested mainly on an uncorroborated co-accused statement. The text notes that confiscation itself was not challenged, but penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal and require positive, tangible evidence before a penalty can be imposed. On that basis, the personal penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the personal penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged possession and delivery of seized computer parts was sustainable in the absence of specific recovery from his exclusive possession and in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The appellant denied ownership of the seized goods and the confiscation was not under challenge. The record indicated that the appellant occupied the first floor of the building, while the seizure memo did not specify the exact place of recovery. The penalty was sought to be sustained mainly on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, which was not corroborated by independent material. In penalty proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962, the standard is quasi-criminal and the Revenue must adduce positive and tangible evidence before penalty can be imposed.

Conclusion: The personal penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---