https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104539 Confiscation of the logs was upheld because no one claimed the goods and the appellants did not dispute liability to confiscation. Personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside because the appellants acted as carrier agents, the record disclosed no mala fide, and the shortage and excess in the cargo largely offset each other, leaving only a marginal discrepancy of two logs. The principle applied is that confiscation may stand on the facts, but a personal penalty requires evidence of culpable conduct. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104539 Confiscation of the logs was upheld because no one claimed the goods and the appellants did not dispute liability to confiscation. Personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside because the appellants acted as carrier agents, the record disclosed no mala fide, and the shortage and excess in the cargo largely offset each other, leaving only a marginal discrepancy of two logs. The principle applied is that confiscation may stand on the facts, but a personal penalty requires evidence of culpable conduct. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104539