https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783870 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetment requires proof of knowing instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in the act or omission that rendered the goods liable to confiscation. Mere negligence, lack of due care, or failure to exercise diligence does not satisfy the statutory requirement of abetment. On the record examined, there was no admissible evidence that the appellant knowingly participated in the offending import-related conduct, and the statement relied on did not cure that evidentiary gap. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside in relation to the appellant. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 18:30:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783870 Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for abetment requires proof of knowing instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in the act or omission that rendered the goods liable to confiscation. Mere negligence, lack of due care, or failure to exercise diligence does not satisfy the statutory requirement of abetment. On the record examined, there was no admissible evidence that the appellant knowingly participated in the offending import-related conduct, and the statement relied on did not cure that evidentiary gap. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside in relation to the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783870