https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34860 Penalty for abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act requires clear evidence of conscious participation in or facilitation of the attempted export. Although the appellant had arranged storage space, an exporter and a customs house agent, the record did not establish any specific overt act showing knowing involvement after the goods were found to be contraband. The finding that he had shielded the exporters was unsupported by particular evidence, and the alleged acts or omissions amounting to abetment were not clearly identified. The penalty was therefore not sustainable and was set aside. en-us Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34860 Penalty for abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act requires clear evidence of conscious participation in or facilitation of the attempted export. Although the appellant had arranged storage space, an exporter and a customs house agent, the record did not establish any specific overt act showing knowing involvement after the goods were found to be contraband. The finding that he had shielded the exporters was unsupported by particular evidence, and the alleged acts or omissions amounting to abetment were not clearly identified. The penalty was therefore not sustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34860