Knowingly aiding contraband import is required for customs penalty; mere introduction of importer was insufficient here.

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained unless the person proceeded against is shown to have knowingly aided or abetted the importation of contraband goods. Where the appellants' role was confined to introducing the importer and assisting with IEC procurement, and no material showed their participation in the import of prohibited goods or knowledge of misdeclaration, the statutory ingredients for penalty were not met. The penalties were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was imposable on the appellants for alleged aiding and abetting in the importation of contraband goods.

Analysis: The appellants' role was found to be limited to introducing the importer for clearance and assisting in obtaining IEC. No material established that they had any role in the importation of the contraband goods or knowledge of the misdeclaration. The container was intercepted and examined at the port, and the appellants came to know of the contraband only after examination. In the absence of proof of participation in the import of prohibited goods, the ingredients for penalty were not satisfied.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not imposable on the appellants, and the penalties were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for import-related contravention cannot be sustained unless the person sought to be penalised is shown to have knowingly aided or abetted the importation of contraband goods.

---