Abetment in customs penalties requires conscious involvement; mere regulatory negligence cannot sustain Section 112(a) liability.

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act attaches only where a person does an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation, or knowingly abets such conduct. For abetment, conscious involvement is essential; mere negligence or non-compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations does not by itself prove participation in attempted smuggling. Uncorroborated statements, without compliance with Section 138B, were treated as insufficient proof. Breach of KYC obligations under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 indicated at most professional negligence, not abetment, and the penalty was therefore held unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on a customs broker was legally sustainable for alleged abetment of attempted smuggling.

Analysis: The penalty under Section 112(a) can attach to a person who does an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation, or who abets such act or omission. In the case of abetment, knowledge of the wrongful act is essential, and mere negligence or failure to comply with Customs Broker Licensing Regulations does not by itself establish participation in smuggling. The record did not show admissible proof of the appellant's conscious involvement, and reliance on untested statements without compliance with Section 138B was held insufficient. The findings that the appellant breached KYC obligations under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018, at most indicated negligence in professional duties, not abetment of the smuggling attempt.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) was not sustainable and was set aside.

---