9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation of the reasons for imposition of penalty on the appellant, we reproduced para 73.1 and 73.2 of the impugned order. As already discussed in detail in the preceding paras, the declarations made in the export documents contained false claims of the extent of export made. There is no denial of the facts by Shri Ashok Pokharkar that, forged Bills of Lading were used by him, to create an evidence of export, whereas no cargo was actually carted into the Docks. The signatures of various functionaries of customs deptt. Steamer Agent, SASMIRA Laboratory Scientists were forged on the various documents to create fictitious evidence of acceptance, of exports, which did not take place. The Licence holder, being fully aware of the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of the Customs Act. I therefore, hold that Shri Balchandra Jadhav is liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act . 2. The appellant en appearing in person has admitted having forged the signatures of various signatories on the various export related documents. However, he has submitted that the said forgery was carried out by him under the directions of his employer Shri Ashok Pokharkar. The appellant was drawing a meagre salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month from M/s. Amol Shipping Agency and had a retired father, mother and brother to support. Inasmuch as, no financial gain was derived by him from the said signatory and the motive behind the said forgery was never disclosed to him, imposition of high penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is nothing on record to show that the appellant was financially benefited by such forgery or was being paid by his employer. However, having committed act of forgery of signatures on various exports and means the appellants has made himself liable to personal penalty under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Act. The appellants contention that he has not physically dealt with the goods does not come to his rescue, inasmuch as, the sub-section (a) of Section 112 of the Act, does not require physically handling of the goods to impose penalty upon any person, who in relation to any goods, does not or omits to do any act, which acts or omission would rendered such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abates the doing or omiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
