9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the goods as roof tiles. It is his submission that the documents were given to him by one Shri N. Ramesh. Shri N. Ramesh, in his statement, had not implicated him and had clearly stated to the authorities that he had not informed him about the sandal wood having been concealed in the consignment. The appellant submits that, in his statement he had merely stated that, he had signed documents without asking for any details because it was signed by Ramesh considering that he would not repeat mistake and he may be pardoned for signing the shipping bill without any knowledge. However, the Commissioner in the impugned order has informed that the appellant Shri U. Siva Subramanian appeared to be in the habit of appending his signature in various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 580 wherein it has been held that from statements recorded therein, the appellant had not been implicated in any way as one who either had any knowledge about the clandestine and illegal acts of the exporters or was in any way privy to the commission of any offence by those persons. The Tribunal observed that "this is a very important point because if really the appellant had been an abettor, Shri Subramanian should have implicated him at least in one of the four statements recorded by the authorities on different dates". Ld. Counsel also relied on the further finding recorded in the same order wherein it was held as under :- ".....I should also like to take note of the fact that even the Customs Authorities themselves, entrusted with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n pursuance of requirement under Regulation 10(2)(b) of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 merely assisted the exporter in storing export goods and rendering services required under aforesaid Regulation when there is no evidence on record to suggest agent having played any active role in attempting to export prohibited goods. Further reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered by this Bench in the case of Syndicate Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 756 wherein it was held that there was no positive evidence on record to show any mala fide intention on the part of the CHA or that he was an accomplice or abettor. Therefore, the allegation on similar facts of appellants having filed the shipping bill in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same day. It has been clearly recorded in the statement of the appellant that he had no knowledge and had no connection with the sandal wood seized. It was submitted by the appellant-CHA that acting on bona fide belief of the statement of Ramesh, he signed the shipping bill. It has not been shown from the show cause notice or from any statement that Ramesh had informed the appellant about the sandal wood having been concealed. The only ground on which the appellant is found guilty of the offence is that he had signed the documents without verification. The penultimate Para 29 of the show cause notice also states that appellant had assisted Ramesh in filing the shipping bill by signing the shipping bill without verifying the contents of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
