Customs penalty unsustainable where no evidence linked employee to smuggled goods recovered from truck and godown.

Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was found unsustainable because the record did not link the appellant to the smuggled goods recovered from the truck and stored in the godown. The only witness present at recovery was the truck cleaner, whose statement referred to loading goods from the godown of M/s. Western Carrier but did not name the appellant. As the appellant was only an employee and there was no evidence that he handled, stored, transported, or otherwise participated in the alleged smuggling, the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was sustainable in the absence of evidence linking him to the smuggled goods recovered from the truck and stored in the godown.

Analysis: The only witness present at the time of recovery was the cleaner of the truck, whose statement referred to loading of goods from the godown of M/s. Western Carrier and did not name the appellant. The appellant was only an employee of the concern, and no notice was issued to M/s. Western Carrier for penal action. The record did not establish that the appellant personally handled, stored, or transported the smuggled goods, or that he was otherwise involved in the alleged smuggling activity.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---