Penalty for abetment of smuggling requires a specific factual foundation, not general regulatory responsibility.

Penalty for alleged abetment of smuggling against a Customs House Agent cannot be sustained unless the notice and adjudication orders identify the specific act or omission constituting abetment. Where the charge is founded only on general regulatory responsibilities, without a concrete factual basis showing breach of duty or participation in the smuggling activity, penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not supported. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, with liberty to the department to lead evidence and a direction to pass a speaking order after hearing the Customs House Agent.

---

---

Issues: Whether a penalty for alleged abetment of smuggling could be sustained when the notice and orders did not specify any act or omission attributable to the Customs House Agent.

Analysis: The notice contained no clear basis for the charge of abetment against the Customs House Agent. The orders below referred to the appellant's regulatory responsibilities, but did not identify any concrete act or omission showing how those responsibilities were breached or how abetment was established. In the absence of a specific factual foundation, penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to the department to adduce evidence and with a direction to pass a speaking order after hearing the Customs House Agent.

---