Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2009 (8) TMI 1025

..... himself appeared to argue his case in this appeal. The charge against the appellant was while the appellant was Superintendent of ICD Meerut he allowed clearance of certain imports in spite of misdeclaration of the country of origin of the goods. DRI intercepted the goods so cleared from the ICD Meerut on 18-7-2000 and seized the consignment relating to bill of entry No. 26 of 17-7-2000. That seizure was the basis with all surrounding circumstances to bring this appellant to the charge of abetment of commitment of offence of misdeclaration escaping notice of customs authority from levy of appropriate duty. The appellant was examined soon after inspection by the DRI and his oral evidence was recorded and brought to record. While the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... /172/02-NB. That was disposed off on 18-6-04. So also the appellant was subjected to adjudication in terms of order-in-original No. 51/COMMR/MRT/2001 dated 29-10-2001. Against that order, the appellant came to the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was dealt under the law without issue of notice and nothing can be done behind his back. Tribunal, by final order No. A/205/03- NB(C) dated 1-4-03 remanded the matter to the learned Adjudicating Authority to grant fair opportunity of trial to the Appellant. That was done by the learned Adjudicating Authority in terms of the impugned order dated 6-6-05 against which the appellant is again in appeal before the Tribunal in second round of litigation. 3. The allegations made against the appell .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ng entrusted with such duty, he was examined by the Investigation. But he gave contradiction statement to escape charge against him so as to bring the appellant to charge. When the Inspector had examined the goods and allowed the same to escape from custom s notice, this appellant should be absolved of liability to penalty. 5. The appellant further submits that principal importer was let off by order of Tribunal dated 18-6-04. Accordingly this appellant cannot be held guilty by the impugned order. The appellant fully agreed with description of goods he had examined and allowed the same to go. But DRI made out a case against him recording evidence from the importer against the appellant. But such statement was subsequently retracted. A Deput .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... tor Shri Ajay Kumar were on the relevant of time acting as Superintendent and Inspector in that ICD respectively. There is also no dispute that the endorsement made on page 131 of the appeal folder was made by the appellant on 17-7-2000. There is also no dispute about the description of the endorsement at page 151. 9. The only dispute raised by the appellant is he was not the examiner of the goods. Appellant s contention that he directed the Inspector Shri Ajay Kumar to examine the goods does not come out from any evidence for the reason that Shri Ajay Kumar on 18-7-2000 by his oral evidence stated that the appellant while acting as superintendent told him that he will take the case of examination of the imported cargo. This is apparent fro .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... lished by seizure by DRI on 18-7-2000. The appellant did not object at any time why he should not be allowed to inspect the goods in the presence of DRI and importer to know basis of seizure. It is also true that there is nothing on record as to drawing of Panchnama in the presence of Appellant. The oral evidence of Inspector as above and appellant s own involvement as above remained un-rebutted. Also there is nothing to speak that misdeclared goods were not allowed by the appellant to leave the ICD and by no means interest of revenue was prejudiced by Appellant. When no piece of evidence was led by Appellant to speak in favour of the appellant, the appellant is not entitled to be absolved from the charge and liability to penalty. 11. In th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... eing examined by him (Inspector). Even endorsement given at page 131 by the appellant is proved to be false. When the evidence of the Inspector categorically brings out that the appellant told him that he shall take care of the consignment and he shall examine the consignment, there was no contradiction in evidence. Therefore appellant s case is far away from the fours of Apex Court decision. 13. The appellant relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, New Delhi v. M.I. Khan (supra) is in relation to immunity granted under Customs Act, 1962. In that case, the Commissioner himself had dropped the proceeding which was found to be without any legal infirmity. The appellant submits that he should have been served a notice under S .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||