TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, Moongipa Roadways Pvt. Ltd., has no case. As regards Jabee & Co., the CHA, As a regular CHA, they should know what type of documents needs to be prepared for the movement of the goods in bond; also they have not controverted the statement of Shri Vijay Bhuwania, the mastermind, who had stated that the CHA was aware of the entire exercise of diversion of the goods. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the adjudicating authority. Penalty upheld - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - C/1282/06, C/21/07-Mum - A/94583-94584/16/CB. - Dated:- 19-12-2016 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri M.L. Grover, Advocate, and Shri Ravinder Jain, Consultant, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o knowledge that the goods are liable for confiscation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Jabee Co., the CHA, submits that they had no role to play in the case, as the moment the goods left the Customs jurisdiction, they would not have any idea of the diversion. The lorry challan prepared by CHA does not give any inkling that the diversion was known to them. It is also his submission that the seals which were found broken in the godown could not have been their handiwork or they would have the knowledge as these seals are to be broken by the importer on receipt of the consignment at destination. 5. Learned departmental representative reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be delivered to Infinity Electric Pvt. Ltd. instead of Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, despite the fact that they were aware that the goods were moving in bond to Kolkata. As a regular CHA, they should know what type of documents needs to be prepared for the movement of the goods in bond; also they have not controverted the statement of Shri Vijay Bhuwania, the mastermind, who had stated that the CHA was aware of the entire exercise of diversion of the goods. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the adjudicating authority. 8. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. 9. The impugned order is upheld and the appeals are rejected. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
