Section 117 Customs penalty needs a specific Customs Act breach, not just a foreign trade policy violation.

Penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires a specifically alleged and established contravention of the Customs Act, or abetment of such contravention, where no other penalty provision applies. A penalty cannot rest merely on breach of Foreign Trade Policy requirements when the export documents themselves contain the correct description and no precise Customs Act violation is pleaded. Invocation of Section 50(3)(b) does not cure the absence of clear notice of the exact breach relied on. On that basis, the penalty was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable where the alleged incorrect declaration was in the airway bills, the shipping bills and allied export documents carried the correct description, and no contravention of the Customs Act itself was specifically alleged or established.

Analysis: Section 117 applies only to contravention of a provision of the Customs Act, abetment of such contravention, or failure to comply with a duty imposed by that Act where no express penalty is otherwise provided. The allegation in the notice and the order rested on breach of Foreign Trade Policy requirements and not on a proved violation of the Customs Act. The export documents were found to contain the correct description, and the invocation of Section 50(3)(b) did not cure the absence of a specific allegation of the exact contravention for which penalty was imposed. In penalty proceedings, the person proceeded against must be clearly put to notice of the precise breach.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 117 was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty cannot be imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless a contravention of the Customs Act is specifically alleged and established, with clear notice of the exact breach.

---