Penalty under Customs Act Section 112(b) requires credible evidence of involvement or nexus with the alleged offence.

Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained without credible evidence linking the person to the alleged customs offence. Where the record only showed that the appellant's cell phone was used by another person, and did not establish participation, facilitation, abetment, or any nexus with the wrongful acts, the penalty was held unsustainable. The absence of material evidence and lack of effective opportunity to explain the case meant that the adverse finding could not stand, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was sustainable in the absence of material evidence linking the appellant to the alleged offence.

Analysis: The only allegation against the appellant was that his cell phone was used by another person. The record did not contain evidence showing that the appellant participated in, facilitated, or abetted the alleged customs violation. The appellant was denied effective opportunity to explain his case, and the material on record did not establish any nexus between him and the wrongful acts attributed to the other persons. In the absence of substantive evidence, imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) could not be justified.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for abetment under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained without credible material evidence establishing the appellant's involvement or nexus with the offence.

---