Penalty for abetment cannot stand without a clear abetment allegation in the show cause notice.

Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was held not leviable because the show cause notice alleged only non-compliance with Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and did not specifically allege abetment. The Tribunal treated the absence of a clear abetment allegation in the notice as fatal to the penalty demand. It also noted that the proceedings under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 had already been dropped against the appellant, reinforcing that the penalty basis could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable when the show cause notice only alleged failure to comply with Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and did not allege abetment.

Analysis: The notice was confined to alleged non-fulfilment of obligations as an authorised courier under Regulation 13 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998. It did not contain a specific allegation of abetment so as to attract penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings initiated under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 had also already been dropped against the appellant.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held not leviable and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for abetment under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be sustained in the absence of a clear allegation of abetment in the show cause notice and where the only pleaded basis is an alleged regulatory lapse under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.

---