Aiding and abetting penalty under customs law requires conscious knowledge; mere lack of due diligence is not enough.

Penalty for aiding and abetting a fraudulent export under the Customs Act was found unsustainable because the employee of a CHA had only obtained export documents and there was no material showing knowledge of the fraud or conscious association with the attempt to export overvalued goods liable to confiscation. Mere casual acceptance of documents or lack of due diligence in verifying the exporter's antecedents was held insufficient to establish the culpable mental element required for penalty under Section 114(iii). The penalty was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed on an employee of a CHA for allegedly aiding and abetting a fraudulent export, where the finding rested on casual acceptance of export documents without verification.

Analysis: The appellant's role was limited to obtaining export documents and there was no material to show that he had knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the export or that he consciously associated himself with the attempt to export overvalued goods liable to confiscation. Mere casualness or lack of due diligence in verifying the exporter's antecedents was held insufficient to establish the culpable mental element required for aiding and abetting so as to attract penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable and was set aside.

---