9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n offence case was made out against the passenger Shri Arifbhai Rasulbhai Vohra and gold jewellery, rough diamonds, diamond dust etc. value at Rs. 12,38,141/- was seized from him. The investigations undertaken by the officers revealed that there was a pre-understanding between the passenger and Shri Y.R. Iyer that for a remuneration of Rs. 1000/-, the passenger will be allowed to go out of the airport without payment of duty. This was corroborated by the Air Customs Officer in his report and also the Asst. Commissioner who was in-charge at the relevant time. Both of them have submitted reports. The AC in-charge had stated that Shri Iyer interfered during the screening of the baggage by the ACO and told the ACO that the passenger was known t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in M/s. McDowell Co. reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 145. The appellant is before me in appeal against this order. 4. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that principles of natural justice were not observed since the two panch witnesses and the Asst. Commissioner were not allowed to be cross-examined; the request for modification of stay order was not considered; the Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed and explained why he has rejected the request for waiver of pre-deposit such as financial difficulties, prima facie case, etc. and has passed an arbitrary order. The ld. Advocate was specifically required by the Bench to explain how the facilities of cross-examination of panch witnesses de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly admitted that he has not got all these details and therefore he could not convincingly advance the ground of financial difficulty for grant of stay or waiver of pre-deposit. He also stated that there is no order-in-appeal since Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined the case on merits. 5. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant has not been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour. In fact the fact that there were 240 calls from his mobile phone to the brother of the passenger is a very damaging evidence and the appellant has been able to give only a very lame excuse. The AC the most senior responsible officer, who was on the spot has given a report which is also a damaging evidence as regards the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
