Abetment penalty under the Customs Act requires clear proof of conscious participation; presumptions alone are insufficient.

Penalty for abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act requires clear evidence of conscious participation in or facilitation of the attempted export. Although the appellant had arranged storage space, an exporter and a customs house agent, the record did not establish any specific overt act showing knowing involvement after the goods were found to be contraband. The finding that he had shielded the exporters was unsupported by particular evidence, and the alleged acts or omissions amounting to abetment were not clearly identified. The penalty was therefore not sustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act for alleged abetment of attempted export of contraband red sanders logs was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant had arranged storage space, an exporter and a CHA, but the record did not establish any clear overt act showing that he knowingly participated in or facilitated the attempted export after the goods were found to be contraband. The finding that he had shielded the real exporters was not supported by specific evidence, and the order did not unambiguously identify acts or omissions amounting to abetment. Penalty cannot rest on presumption of conscious participation.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act was not sustainable and was set aside.

---