Customs penalty requires proof of exporter's role; suspicion alone cannot sustain liability for alleged substitution of goods.

Penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act requires proof that the exporter did, omitted to do, or abetted an act rendering goods liable to confiscation under section 113. Where the declared goods were factory-stuffed under customs supervision, sealed at the factory, and found intact at the dock, and the department produced no direct or corroborative evidence of the exporter's knowledge, participation, or control over any substitution after departure from the factory, suspicion could not replace proof. The penalty on the exporter was therefore not sustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 114(i) of the Customs Act could be sustained against the exporter for alleged attempted export of red sanders wood logs concealed in a container declared to contain refractory bricks.

Analysis: Penalty under section 114(i) requires proof that the person concerned did or omitted to do an act, or abetted such act, so as to render the goods liable to confiscation under section 113. The record showed that the declared goods were factory-stuffed under customs supervision, supported by ARE-1, sealed at the factory, and found intact at the dock. No credible evidence established the exporter's knowledge of, participation in, or control over the substitution of goods after the container left the factory. The department did not bring any direct or corroborative material showing an affirmative role by the exporter, and suspicion could not substitute for proof.

Conclusion: The penalty on the exporter was not sustainable and was set aside.

---