TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought on record to show that the respondents had connived and abetted in the acts of exporter to claim the drawback fraudulently. In absence of any personal knowledge of the respondents or their act of connivance or abetment in the acts of exporters the provisions of Section 114 could not have been invoked against these officers. Commissioner has also not given the clean chit to these officers in respect of their failure to perform the duties assigned to them diligently. He only has extended the benefit of doubt as departmental investigation has failed to show that these officers had knowledge and had connived with the exporter in his act - penalty cannot be imposed. Decided against Revenue. - Customs Miscellaneous Application (COD) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly) on Shri Rajendra Tripathi. e. ₹ 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on Shri Gawade. 4) Penal proceedings against Shri Shaukat Ali Khan, Director of CHA, M/s Hina Shipping Clearing (Cochin) (P) Ltd CHA M/s Exfin Shipping India Ltd are dropped. 5) Penal proceedings under Customs Act, 1962 against Shri A K Chaudhary, the then Dy Commissioner, Shri K K Sharma, Supdt, Shri R K Tomar Supdt and Shri M V Shirkar, Preventive officer are dropped. This does not bar the authorities from taking any action against the officers under Conduct Rules/ any other law, as deemed fit and if found necessary. 2.1 These appeals have been filed by the revenue as per the directions contained in the tribunal interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be as many as the number of the orders-in-original to which the case relates in so far as the appellant is concerned. (2) In case an impugned order is in respect of more than one persons, each aggrieved person will be required to file a separate appeal (and common appeals or joint appeals shall not be entertained). 2.4 Without going into the interpretation of Rule 6A and explanation thereto we find that these appeals have been filed by the revenue as directed by the tribunal, to comply with the requirement of explanation (2) to Rule 6A. Since the main appeal was filed within time, these appeals are only technical appeals and the delay in filing these appeals need to be condoned. We do accordingly. 3.1 In their appeal me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he was present at the time of examination of Shipping Bills 5226019, 5226025 and 5226028 all dated 31.05.2002, but as the goods were found to be of inferior quality than as declared in the Shipping Bills, he had refused to sign the said Shipping Bills. He further stated that when this fact was conveyed to Mr. Mufti, he was told it was none of his (Mr. Gawde) business to see the quality of the goods and he (Shri Mufti) would manage the examination officer. 33. Supdt. Shri K.K. Sharma, in his statement has stated to have given the Let Export Order for the said S/Bills. On being asked by he was not present at the time of examination, he stated that since the samples were drawn and shown to DC/STP and accepted by him, he presumed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .V. Shirkar (Preventive Officer) and Shri K.K. Sharma (Superintendent), who examined and gave Let Export Order for the subject Shipping Bills. The fact is further corroborated by the statement of CHA s representative Shri Gawde, who stated that at the time of initial examination, the goods were found to be of inferior quality. 4.1 We have heard Shri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. None appeared for the respondents. 4.2 Arguing for the revenue authorized representative reiterated the submissions made in appeal. 5.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 5.2 Commissioner has while discussing the role of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i vs Hargovind Export [2003 (158) ELT 496 (Tri Delhi)] held that only highlighting the dereliction of duty by the respondents not sufficient for imposition of penalty. Exporter denied knowing any of the officers personally. Nothing brought on record to show the knowledge of and benefit to the officers and the Tribunal refused to interfere with the Commissioner s order dropping charges against the officers. 5.3 In the appeal filed by the revenue, nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents had connived and abetted in the acts of exporter to claim the drawback fraudulently. In absence of any personal knowledge of the respondents or their act of connivance or abetment in the acts of exporters the provisions of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
