Penalty for abetment under Customs law requires proof of knowledge or a positive act, not negligence alone.

Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained on negligence alone; liability requires proof of a statutory omission in relation to goods liable to confiscation or a positive act of abetment with knowledge of the offending goods. Where the container was sealed in the appellant's presence but later found broken with contraband allegedly inserted during transit, and the record showed no act, omission, or knowledge attributable to the exporter or its director, the penalty was set aside as being based on presumption and surmise.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against the exporter and its director for the alleged attempted export of contraband goods concealed in the container.

Analysis: The container was stuffed and sealed in the presence of the appellant, but it was later found broken with contraband allegedly inserted during transit. The legal basis for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires an omission in relation to goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 or abetment of such omission. The record did not show any act or omission by the appellant amounting to abetment, nor any evidence that the appellant had knowledge of the contraband being carried in the container. The findings of the adjudicating authority were treated as resting on presumptions and surmises. Reliance was also placed on the principle that negligence, by itself, does not establish liability for penalty where a statutory duty or positive act of abetment is not proved.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not justified and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained on negligence alone; the Revenue must prove a statutory omission or a positive act of abetment with knowledge of the offending goods.

---