Abetment penalty for fraudulent export needs cogent evidence linking the CHA to the offending act.

Penalty for abetment of a fraudulent export cannot be sustained unless cogent evidence links the CHA or its representative to the preparation, filing, or arrangement of the shipping bills and the offending act itself. Where the record showed only the CHA seal, no signatures by the firm or its employees, and a bare reference in an untested statement, the evidentiary basis was insufficient to establish complicity under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The cited CHA licensing regulations did not alter that result because no material connected them to the alleged offence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were liable to penalty for abetment of the attempted fraudulent export in the absence of evidence linking them to the preparation or filing of the shipping bills.

Analysis: There was no material to show that the CHA firm or its partner prepared the shipping bills, arranged the export, or signed any of the documents. The shipping bills bore only the seal of the CHA and not the signature of the firm or its employees. Mere reference to one appellant's name in a statement, without supporting evidence and with the maker of the statement unavailable for further examination, was insufficient to establish complicity. In the absence of proof of role, the invocation of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was unsustainable. The reference to Regulations 14(b) and 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 also did not assist the revenue because no evidentiary basis connected those provisions to the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The appellants were not proved to have abetted the offence, and the penalties imposed on them could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the penalties were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for abetment cannot be sustained unless the alleged role of the CHA or its representative in the fraudulent export is established by cogent evidence linking them to the offending act.

---