Knowledge requirement for customs penalty: arranging transport alone was insufficient to sustain liability for alleged abetment of illegal export.

Penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export was unsustainable where the record did not show that the appellant knew the consignment contained Muriate of Potash instead of the declared goods. Arranging lorries for transport, without admissible evidence of knowledge of the prohibited nature or actual contents of the cargo, was held insufficient to establish conscious involvement or penal liability. The penalty was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export was sustainable in the absence of evidence that the appellant had knowledge of the offending goods.

Analysis: The appellant had admittedly arranged lorries for transportation of the export consignment, but the record did not contain admissible evidence showing that, at the time of arranging transport, he knew that the container contained Muriate of Potash instead of the declared goods. Mere arrangement of vehicles, without proof of knowledge of the prohibited nature or actual contents of the consignment, was held insufficient to fasten penal liability under the provision. In the absence of material establishing conscious involvement, the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---