Customs penalty for abetment of smuggling upheld on corroborated carrier evidence, but the personal penalty was reduced.

Carrier testimony, corroborated by photographic identification and recovery of the appellant's Dubai contact number, was treated as sufficient to establish involvement in handing over gold bars for consideration and abetment of smuggling for penalty purposes. The customs standard of proof was applied as less stringent than in criminal prosecution, and the surrounding evidence supported liability under the Customs Act. The appellant was therefore held liable to penalty under Section 112, but the personal penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 10,000.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to penalty for abetment of smuggling under the Customs Act, and whether the quantum of penalty required reduction.

Analysis: The carrier of the gold bars identified the appellant as the person who handed over the gold at Dubai and stated that he was carrying it for consideration on the appellant's behalf. That statement was supported by the carrier's identification of the appellant from a photograph and by recovery of the appellant's contact number in Dubai. In customs adjudication, the standard of proof is not the same as in criminal prosecution, and the surrounding evidence was treated as sufficient to establish involvement for penalty purposes.

Conclusion: The appellant was held liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, but the personal penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 10,000.

---