Customs penalty for abetment requires proof of participation in prohibited export, not mere currency conversion.

Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained without proof that the person knowingly abetted the prohibited export or related offence. Mere conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency at another's instance, without material showing participation in taking the currency out of India or otherwise assisting the illegal export, is insufficient to attract confiscation-linked penalty. On the facts noted, the evidence did not establish the required abetment, so the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act was sustainable on the basis of the evidence of abetment in relation to attempted illegal export of currency.

Analysis: The evidence showed only that the appellant converted Indian currency into foreign currency at the instance of others. There was no material to establish that he had abetted the taking out of the currency from India or had otherwise committed an offence attracting confiscation under Section 114(i). Mere conversion of currency, without proof of participation in the prohibited export or abetment of such act, was insufficient to sustain the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not legally sustainable and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act requires proof that the person knowingly abetted the prohibited export or other offence in relation to the goods; mere conversion of currency at another's instance does not establish such abetment.

---