Customs penalty against officers needs proof of aiding or abetting; mere negligence and no pecuniary gain were insufficient.

Penalty under the Customs Act against customs officers requires evidence of aiding, abetting, or other culpable involvement; mere negligence in duty is insufficient. The record did not show that the officers acted for pecuniary gain or facilitated the alleged importers, and separate disciplinary consequences had already been imposed on one officer. On that basis, the penalty on Smt. Geeta V. Patil was held unsustainable and set aside, and no penalty was found imposable on the other departmental officers.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was sustainable against the customs officer and whether penalty could be imposed on the other departmental officers in the absence of evidence of aiding, abetting or pecuniary gain.

Analysis: The material on record did not establish that the officers had aided or abetted the alleged importers or that they had acted for any monetary gain. The conduct, at the highest, disclosed negligence in duty. The officer had already suffered disciplinary consequences in separate proceedings, and the record did not show the kind of culpable involvement necessary to sustain customs penalty. On the same reasoning, no basis was found to impose penalty on the other two officers.

Conclusion: The penalty on Smt. Geeta V. Patil was unsustainable and was set aside. The Revenue's appeals against Shri V.M. Joshi and Shri A.A. Salkar were dismissed, as no penalty was imposable against them.

---