Aiding and abetting penalty requires proof of knowledge of misdeclaration; absence of such material defeats the penalty.

Penalty for aiding and abetting cannot be sustained unless the record shows knowledge or a reasonable belief that the importer had misdeclared the goods. On the facts noted, the appellant's role in seeking clearance, lack of proper authorisation, and handling of customs documents did not establish awareness of concealment before filing the bill of entry. The appellant was therefore not shown to have aided or abetted any act or omission making the goods liable to confiscation, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for aiding and abetting could be sustained in the absence of material showing knowledge or reasonable belief of misdeclaration of the imported goods.

Analysis: The record did not establish any material to attribute knowledge or reasonable belief to the appellant regarding the misdeclaration by the importer. The reliance placed on his approach for clearance of the consignment, the absence of proper authorisation, and his handling of customs documents did not, on the facts found, prove awareness of concealment before filing of the bill of entry.

Conclusion: The appellant was not shown to have aided and abetted any act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation, and the penalty could not be sustained.

---