9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal, the department seeks to question the finding of the Collector (Appeals), who in turn confirmed the findings of the Additional Collector that the respondent was not liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Act. 2. The notice issued to the respondent proposed imposition of penalty on the ground that, while working as a Custom Officer in the clearance of passengers at Sahar Airport, he col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated, in the presence of witnesses, that they were asked by Rajubhai who delivered the goods in Singapore to wait for clearance by P.R. Kulkarni is not substantiated. In fact, even the notice issued to the respondent was not produced by either side strangely enough. 4. The contentions in grounds (4) to (11) are, to put it mildly, totally wrong. None of the persons named in these grounds has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds of the application that each of these person named P.R. Kulkarni by name. 5. It is reasonable to expect that minimum care and attention should be taken in drafting such appeals and misleading averments are not made therein. 6. It would follow that there is thus insufficient ground to justify interference with the Collector (Appeals) order. 7. There are in addition other aspects. None ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he five passengers arrived from Singapore by Lufthansa flight at 1.30 a.m. on 17-1-1986 and waited till after 7.00 a.m. It is not clear why they should not wait for 6 hours for clearance; why all of them who admittedly brought baggages at the instance of Patel and Kolambkar should have chosen to come to a particular officer; why all of them should wait for six hours for clearance, is another. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
