TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, whereby penalty of rupees two lakh was imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Custom Act. 3. Appellants are working as a Customs Inspector. M/s. Romil International filed four shipping bills declaring the goods as readymade garments. The appellant gave an examination report that the goods were as per declaration. Subsequently the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er declaration in the shipping Bill. Therefore, appellant is liable only for administration action as per Civil Services Conduct Rules and not under the Customs Act. The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C., New Delhi v. Hargovind Export Ors. Reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 496 (Tribunal) = 2003 (58) RLT 759 and in the case of C.C., Mumbai v. M.Vasi Ors. re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort made by some other exporter viz. M/s. P.S. International and the evidence collected in that proceeding and the statements recorded during that investigation of that case are made basis in the present case for imposition of penalty. The contention is that in these circumstances the penalty is not sustainable. 5. In this case, the appellant was working as Customs Inspector and his duty was to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to the exporter which was not due and loss to the Revenue of the same amount. The contention of the appellant regarding abetment is that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant is connected with the exporter or he has any monitory benefit out of this export. We find it has come on record to that Shri Vinod Gandotara was the link between the exporter and custom official and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
