Customs penalty for alleged abetment fails where evidence is insufficient and parallel criminal and disciplinary proceedings end in exoneration.

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable where the evidence did not clinch the appellant's alleged abetment in clearing imported parcels without duty. The same allegations had already ended in acquittal in parallel criminal proceedings for want of cogent, consistent and satisfactory evidence, and the disciplinary enquiry on identical charges had also resulted in exoneration. In these circumstances, the penalty could not survive on the same material and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against the appellant in the absence of clinching evidence and in view of his acquittal in parallel criminal proceedings and exoneration in disciplinary proceedings.

Analysis: The penalty was imposed for alleged abetment in clearance of imported parcels without payment of customs duty. The evidence was found insufficient to establish the appellant's involvement. On the same allegations, the appellant had been acquitted in criminal proceedings for want of cogent, consistent and satisfactory evidence. The disciplinary enquiry on identical charges also did not prove intentional misconduct, and the appellant had been exonerated. In such circumstances, penalty on the same charges and evidence could not survive.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable and was set aside.

---