Mere negligence is not abetment under customs penalty law; intentional aid or conspiracy must be proved before penalty can stand.

Mere negligence or casual performance of official duty does not amount to abetment under the Customs Act unless there is proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The record showed only that the customs officer conducted the market inquiry after the alleged fraudulent exports and did not establish any intentional complicity, benefit, or active participation in the wrongful drawback claim. At most, the material indicated dereliction of duty, which is insufficient for penalty under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA. The CESTAT therefore held the penalty unsustainable and set it aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114(iii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the ground that the customs officer, while conducting market inquiry, acted in a casual and improper manner and thereby abetted fraudulent export and wrongful draw-back.

Analysis: The only substantive question was whether the alleged negligence in conducting the market inquiry amounted to abetment. Abetment, as understood in law, requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, and therefore demands a positive and intentional nexus with the principal offence. The inquiry in question was conducted after the alleged fraudulent exports had already taken place. The record did not show any material to prove that the officer instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the exporters, or that he derived any benefit from the transactions. At the highest, the material suggested lack of diligence and improper performance of official duty, which may amount to dereliction of duty but not abetment. In the absence of cogent evidence of intentional complicity, the penal provisions invoked against the officer could not be applied.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere negligence or casual discharge of official duty, without proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, does not constitute abetment for the purposes of customs penalty provisions.

---