9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 40/2004, dated 29-1-2004 confirming imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 75,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellants had cleared the goods in the container for export of the same to China. Inspector in-charge had permitted the appellants to stuff the goods for export and the same had been sealed in his presence. He had given permission to the appellants to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and in showing irregularity of the procedures. For the failure committed by the inspector, they cannot be blamed and the goods cannot be confiscated and penalty imposed. The learned Counsel relies on various provisions of the Rule and also the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Euro Cotspin Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 85] wherein the Tribunal in a similar circumstance has set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that when the goods have been cleared for export, the appellants ought to have taken the signature from the concerned inspector and removed the goods. 3. On a careful consideration, I notice that there is only a formal breach committed by the appellants in not obtaining the signature from the inspector on the invoice and on AR 4, the Inspector s conduct has been challenged by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
