Customs penalty requires proof of nexus with goods; mere ownership of a travel agency was insufficient to sustain penalty.

Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable where the record did not establish any nexus between the appellant and the goods in question. The driver's statement and the appellant's own statement did not show that he had instructed, directed, or otherwise connected himself with the goods found in the van, and the finding proceeded on the basis that another person had loaded them. Mere ownership of the travel agency was insufficient to fasten personal penalty, so the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against the appellant in the absence of evidence connecting him with the goods in question.

Analysis: The appellant was concerned only with the penalty, not with the confiscation of the goods or vehicle. The material on record, including the driver's statement and the appellant's statement, did not establish that the appellant had instructed, led, or otherwise connected himself with the goods found in the van. The finding proceeded on the premise that the goods were loaded by another person, and the appellant's mere status as owner of the travel agency was insufficient to fasten penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---