Customs penalty liability for misuse of a CHA licence upheld where omission facilitated attempted export of prohibited goods.

Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as sustainable where a Customs House Agent permitted use of his licence without due diligence and thereby facilitated an attempted export of prohibited red sanders. The provision was applied on the basis that liability can arise from an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, without requiring proof of conscious and knowing involvement for that limb, while abetment remains separately covered. On the stated findings, the agent's lack of supervision and permission for misuse of the licence formed part of the transaction leading to attempted smuggling, and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable against a Customs House Agent who permitted use of his licence without due diligence and thereby facilitated attempted export of prohibited red sanders.

Analysis: Section 114 fastens liability on any person who, in relation to goods, does or omits to do any act or omission rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113, and separately refers to abetment. The provision was held to create liability on the basis of the act or omission itself, without requiring proof of conscious and knowing involvement for the first limb. On the findings, the appellant permitted misuse of his CHA licence, had no direct dealings with the exporter, exercised no supervision, and his omissions formed part of the transaction that led to the attempted smuggling of prohibited goods liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld and the challenge by the appellant failed.

---