Customs broker penalty requires proof of abetment; without evidence of complicity, Section 112(a) penalty cannot stand.

Penalty on a customs house broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged aiding or abetting short payment of customs duty was examined on the basis of the record. The importer had paid the differential duty with interest after the short levy was pointed out, and no material established that the broker had aided or abetted the default. In the absence of proof of complicity, the statutory foundation for penalty was not made out, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the customs house broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged aiding or abetting the short payment of customs duty was sustainable.

Analysis: The importer had paid the differential duty along with interest after the short levy was pointed out, and the record did not show any material establishing that the customs house broker had aided or abetted the importer's default. The finding of abetment was therefore unsupported. In the absence of proof of complicity, the statutory basis for penalty under Section 112(a) did not survive.

Conclusion: The penalty on the customs house broker was not justified and was set aside.

---