Penalty on indenting agent requires clear allegations of abetment; vague notice and non-deliberate misdeclaration defeat liability.

Penalty on an indenting agent for undeclared spares in an imported consignment was found unjustified because the show cause notice did not specify any act or omission constituting abetment. The notice referred to confiscation and penalty, but it failed to allege a clear factual basis for fastening liability on the agent. The adjudicating authority had also found that the misdeclaration was not deliberate, and the spares were of relatively small value compared with the main scanner. On those facts, the prerequisite for imposing penalty on the respondent was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed on the indenting agent for the undeclared spares found in the imported consignment when the show cause notice did not specifically set out the acts or omissions constituting its liability.

Analysis: The notice proposed confiscation and penalty, but it did not spell out any specific act by the respondent showing abetment in the importation of the goods. The undeclared spares were of relatively small value compared with the scanner, and the adjudicating authority had already found that the misdeclaration was not deliberate. In the absence of clear allegations and in light of the facts found, the basis for fastening penalty on the respondent was not made out.

Conclusion: Penalty on the respondent was not justified.

---