No penalty for abetment without proof of active participation or causal nexus; factual findings barred further appellate review.

Penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against subordinate customs or transport officials where the record showed no active participation, motive, or causal nexus between their acts or omissions and the alleged illegal export of vintage cars. The Tribunal's factual findings that the officials acted under instructions and that alleged registration lapses did not facilitate the export were accepted, and the High Court held that the challenge involved only appreciation of facts. As no substantial question of law arose under section 130, appellate interference was declined and the Tribunal's order setting aside the penalties remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified against customs/transport officials for alleged abetment in export of vintage cars, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order setting aside the penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the respondents were subordinate officials who acted under instructions, that there was no material showing any active role or motive on their part, and that the alleged lapses in the registration process were not shown to have facilitated the export. The Court held that these were findings of fact and that the Commissioner's order did not establish the necessary nexus between the respondents' acts or omissions and the alleged illegal export. In the absence of proof of active participation or facilitation, and since the challenge turned only on factual appreciation, no substantial question of law arose for consideration under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustained, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order setting aside the penalties was left undisturbed, as the High Court found no substantial question of law warranting appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for abetment under the Customs Act cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence showing active participation or a causal nexus between the alleged omission and the prohibited export, and pure findings of fact do not give rise to a substantial question of law.

---