Customs penalty requires proof of wilful participation or abetment; uncorroborated statements and mere preparation were insufficient.

Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act could be sustained only on reliable evidence of wilful participation, abetment, or knowledge in the export activity; inconsistent statements and uncorroborated material were insufficient. The record did not establish the appellant's active role, attempt to export, or post-shipping bill conduct, and the alleged acts amounted at most to preparation rather than an attempt or completed export attracting confiscation or penalty under Sections 113(d), 113(i), or 114. The penalty was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged involvement in the export of goods and drawback proceedings was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant's liability depended on proof of wilful participation, abetment, or knowledge in the export activity after filing of the shipping bill under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962. The record did not establish any reliable material showing the appellant's active role in the export, attempt to export, or post-shipping bill conduct. The statements relied upon were inconsistent and were not corroborated sufficiently to justify fastening liability. The alleged acts, at best, indicated preparation, which is distinct from an attempt or completed export for the purpose of confiscation and penalty. In the absence of material showing conduct attracting Sections 113(d), 113(i), or 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

---