9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter referred to as 'HCCAR, 2009'], the custodian is duty bound to be diligent in discharging their duties under the prevailing Customs laws and HCCAR, 2009. During surprise check conducted by officers of the department at the export shed on 01.08.2019, some shipping bills were picked up randomly and the movement of the goods was closely followed in respect of these shipping bills. It was observed that in case of Shipping Bill No.5981482, dated 01.08.2019, the 'Let Export Order' [LEO] was given by Customs at 17:27 hrs. However, cargo was allowed for scanning by the appellants at 16:45 hrs itself as seen fromthe register maintained by them. Thus, the appellants had allowed the cargo to move into the sterile area without checking the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulations 12(8) of HCCAR,2009. However, the appointment as custodian of cargo was not revoked. Aggrieved by the penalty imposed, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel Shri Manoj Arora appeared and argued for the appellants. He adverted to Paras 3 and 4 of the show-cause notice and submitted that the allegation in the show-cause notice that appellants violated the Rules in earlier cases, which led to smuggling of Star Tortoises on 07.11.2018, is totally false and untrue. The appellants were never connected with any such smuggling case leading to seizure of 'Start Tortoises'. The appellants were indeed issued show-cause notice with regard to seizure of 'Red Sanders' on 29.07.2019. Though in the said mater penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel submitted that these are merely allegations without any evidence. The department has not requested the appellants to furnish the list of persons who have been issued ID cards or the list of persons whose ID cards have been revoked. Had any request been made, the appellants would have furnished the same. He prayed that the penalties may be set aside. 4. The learned Authorised Representative Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order. With regard to the Shipping Bill No.5981482, dated 01.08.2019, it is pointed out by her that the LEO was issued by Customs only at 17:27 hrs. The scanning was done at 16:45 hrs, which is almost half-an-hour before sanction of LEO. This is clear violation of Regulations 6(f) of HC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of penalty on the appellants. The said order of the adjudicating authority was challenged by the appellants before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 07.12.2020 set aside the penalty observing that there were no shortcomings on the part of the appellants. 7. The allegations in show-cause notice now narrows down to the Shipping Bill No.5981482, dated 01.08.2019, wherein the LEO was given by Customs at 17:27 hrs. It is the case of the department that the appellants allowed the cargo for scanning at 16:45 hrs much before sanction of LEO. On perusal of the X-Ray Register, it is seen that though the cargo had reached for scanning at 16:45 hrs, the same was detained without conducting the X-Ray scan. It was again scanned only at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
