Mere negligence is not abetment under Customs penalty law when there is no proof of knowledge or active participation.

Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable where there was no evidence that the customs house agent knew of the substitution of red sanders logs for mica powder during transit. The record did not show the agent's involvement in the tampering, and mere negligence was insufficient to establish abetment for penal liability. As the Department failed to prove knowledge or active participation, the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against the appellant on the basis of alleged negligence and abetment in the smuggling of red sanders logs.

Analysis: There was no evidence that the appellant had knowledge of the substitution of red sanders logs for mica powder. The consignment had been tampered with during transit, and it was not the Department's case that the CHA was involved in the tampering. Since the CHA itself had not been penalised, mere negligence could not be equated with abetment so as to attract penal action.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere negligence, without evidence of knowledge or active participation, does not constitute abetment for the purpose of imposing penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

---