Insufficient evidence for customs penalty under Section 114(1) where mere accompaniment did not prove involvement in smuggling.

Penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act was held unsustainable because the Department relied only on the appellant's accompaniment of the alleged smuggler to a freight forwarder and airline office. The recorded statements did not implicate the appellant in the attempted smuggling of foreign currency, and the alleged principal offender was not examined. On that slender evidence, penal action could not be justified, and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable on the basis of the evidence relied upon by the Department.

Analysis: The only material against the appellant was his accompanying the person alleged to be involved in the attempted smuggling of foreign currency to the offices of a freight forwarder and the airline. The statements on record did not implicate the appellant in the attempt to smuggle the currency, and the person said to be the principal offender was not examined. The evidence was found too slender to justify penal action.

Conclusion: The penalty was not legally sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---