Abetment penalty under Customs law fails without proof of intentional aid or knowing participation.

A Single Member Bench could hear an appeal against a Customs House Agent's penalty because Section 129C(4)(c) permits single-member jurisdiction where the fine or penalty does not exceed ten lakhs, and an internal office order could not override the statute. On merits, penalty under Section 112(b) for abetment failed because the record did not show positive evidence of intentional aid, knowledge, or active complicity; mere suspicion, negligence, or an assumed duty to verify the importer was insufficient. The abetment charge was therefore not proved and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to hear the appeal involving a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs imposed on a Customs House Agent; (ii) Whether the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetment was sustainable in the absence of evidence showing intentional aid or active complicity.

Issue (i): Whether a Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to hear the appeal involving a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs imposed on a Customs House Agent.

Analysis: The jurisdictional limit under Section 129C(4)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 permits a Single Member to hear appeals where the fine or penalty does not exceed ten lakhs rupees. The office order relied upon by the Revenue was treated as only an internal guideline and not as a mandate overriding the statute. The matter also followed the prevailing tribunal practice and earlier orders directing similar penalty matters to be heard by a Single Member Bench.

Conclusion: The Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetment was sustainable in the absence of evidence showing intentional aid or active complicity.

Analysis: The finding of abetment rested on inference that the Customs House Agent should have verified the importer and should not have handed over documents to a middleman. However, the record showed that the agent had not filed the bill of entry in the present case and no positive evidence established that he intentionally aided the offence or had knowledge of the illegality. The legal standard for abetment required intentional assistance and some degree of knowledge of the contravention, not mere negligence or suspicion. On that basis, the charge of abetment was not proved.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the jurisdiction objection failed and the Department did not establish abetment against the Customs House Agent on the evidence available.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for abetment under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained unless the Department proves by positive evidence that the person intentionally aided or knowingly participated in the contravention; mere negligence, suspicion, or assumption is insufficient.

---