Abetment penalty in customs export cases needs proof of conscious knowledge and intentional assistance, not mere suspicious conduct.

Penalty for abetment under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act required proof of conscious knowledge of the attempted export of hashish and intentional assistance in the smuggling venture. Suspicious or unusual handling of export documents and formalities was not enough, because the material did not establish with adequate certainty that the appellants knew the consignment contained hashish or that they participated knowingly in preparing the documents. In the absence of reliable proof of knowledge and intentional facilitation, the charge of abetment could not be sustained and the penalty was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants knowingly abetted the attempted export of hashish so as to attract penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Penalty for abetment required proof that the appellants had conscious knowledge of the illicit export and had intentionally assisted or facilitated the commission of the offence. The material relied upon against the appellants showed suspicious or unusual conduct in handling the documents and export formalities, but it did not establish with adequate certainty that they knew the consignment contained hashish or that the documents were prepared with their knowing participation in the smuggling scheme. In the absence of reliable proof of such knowledge and intentional assistance, the charge of abetment could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 114(1) failed. The penalty on the appellants was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed in their favour.

---