Customs penalty for abetment can apply without filing the bill of entry; disproportionate quantum may still be reduced.

Penalty under Customs law may attach to a person who did not file the bill of entry if the record shows abetment of the import offence and renders the goods liable to confiscation. Statements recorded during investigation, bank transactions, and other independent material were treated as sufficient, and retraction of the statement or a request for cross-examination did not dislodge that evidence. The penalty on the abettor was upheld. The penalty on the importing concern's proprietor was, however, reduced because it was found disproportionate when compared with the lesser penalty sustained against the other appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against a person who had not filed the bill of entry but was found to have abetted the illegal import; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the proprietor of the importing concern required reduction to be at par with the penalty imposed on the other appellant.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against a person who had not filed the bill of entry but was found to have abetted the illegal import?

Analysis: The findings of the adjudicating authority and the Tribunal were based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, bank transactions, and other independent material showing involvement in the import operation. The Court held that even if a person was not the filer of the bill of entry, liability under Section 112(a) could arise where the person was found to have abetted the offence rendering the goods liable to confiscation. The retraction of the statement and the request for cross-examination did not dislodge the evidence relied upon.

Conclusion: The penalty on the first appellant was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the proprietor of the importing concern required reduction to be at par with the penalty imposed on the other appellant?

Analysis: The Court noted that the role attributed to the proprietor was not greater than that attributed to the other appellant, who had been treated as the master mind and penalised in a lesser amount. In the circumstances, the higher penalty imposed on the proprietor was considered disproportionate when compared with the penalty already sustained against the other appellant.

Conclusion: The penalty on the proprietor was reduced to the same amount as the other appellant's penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining the penalty on one appellant and granting partial relief to the other by reducing the penalty amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A person need not file the bill of entry to attract penalty under Section 112(a) if the evidence establishes abetment of the import offence, and penalty may be modified on appeal where the quantum is found disproportionate to the comparative role proved on record.

---