be located. It shows that those 5 printing machines were disposed off or transferred illegally. Thus, in the present case, this condition of actual user and the condition of non-transfer of the machinery within five years from the date of import were violated. In view of this, it is clear that there was violation of the condition of actual user attached to the import of second-hand printing machines under the provisions of Export and Import Policy under the Foreign Trade Act and, therefore, the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(o). Under Section 112, any person, who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act or (b), who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111, is liable to be penalised. In view of this, we find no fault with the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and maintained by the Appellate Tribunal holding the present appellant liable to be penalised under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal.
