9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ji International Airport Sahar, Mumbai, by which he has upheld the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each imposed on them under Section 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the joint Commissioner of Customs, U.B. Centre, ACC, Sahar Mumbai. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is the same, these are taken up for disposal by the common order. 4. The brief facts of the case are that Airway Bill No. 072-58629023 was prepared in the name of Shri Mohammed Asif and it was subsequently found to be corrected by tampering the printed name, in the name of Shri Muhammed ali Madakkar Kurupillath without a dated signature by Gulf Air, Mumbai. This correction was done after one month of the arriva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the rival submissions. I reproduce below the extract of the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) :- I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, grounds of appeal as well as submissions made at the time of personal hearing. The issue to be decided is whether an airway bill forms a part of IGM and whether airway bill can be amended without customs permission. It is observed that Rule 3 of Import Manifest (Aircraft) Regulation, 1976 provides that 1. Every import manifest shall (a) be delivered in duplicate (b) cover all the goods carried in the aircraft and (c) consist of- (i) a general declaration (ii) a passenger manifest (iii) a cargo manifest (iv) a list of private pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with the copies of these Airway Bills pertaining to the cargo on board, all such Airway Bills become part of IGM. Any amendment in Airway Bill after the IGM is filed will mean amendment in the IGM and hence, it will require permission of Customs, as provided in Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. Having held so, I observe that the findings of the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) do not indicate any direct involvement of the appellants in the improper importation of the goods. The appellants, being the employees, were bound to carry out the amendment of the Airway Bill as directed by the Gulf Air, Abu Dhabi (Station of Origin). They were not aware of the detention of the impugned goods by the Customs. If they had kno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
