https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409736 Mere negligence or casual performance of official duty does not amount to abetment under the Customs Act unless there is proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The record showed only that the customs officer conducted the market inquiry after the alleged fraudulent exports and did not establish any intentional complicity, benefit, or active participation in the wrongful drawback claim. At most, the material indicated dereliction of duty, which is insufficient for penalty under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA. The CESTAT therefore held the penalty unsustainable and set it aside. en-us Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Apr 2022 12:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409736 Mere negligence or casual performance of official duty does not amount to abetment under the Customs Act unless there is proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The record showed only that the customs officer conducted the market inquiry after the alleged fraudulent exports and did not establish any intentional complicity, benefit, or active participation in the wrongful drawback claim. At most, the material indicated dereliction of duty, which is insufficient for penalty under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA. The CESTAT therefore held the penalty unsustainable and set it aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409736