https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81489 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. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:45:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81489 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. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Aug 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81489