9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms. One shipping bill was received from M/s Amber Exports, Jalandhar on 31.3.2000 for export of hand tool under claim of DEPB. The Inspector of Customs examined the goods and placed the examination report before the respondent on 31.3.2000 for countersignature, the same was signed by the respondent on 31.3.2000. 3. However, enquiry revealed that the goods were not available for inspection on 31.3.2000. The same were brought subsequently on 3.4.2000 and were examined by the officer of the Customs on 4.4.2000 and stuffing and sealing of the container was done on 4.4.2000. 4. On the above basis, the proceedings were initiated against the respondent for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act for aiding a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll was/is (being) presented at any stage by the exporter/CHA to the Shed Incharge or to the Customs. However, from the said Para of the Public Notice, it transpires that the Examination Order on the duplicate of the Shipping Bill is issued by the Appraiser only after the receipt of goods. As regards the allegation of ante-dating by the appellant, I find that there is no mention in the Show Cause Notice that in this case, the Shipping Bill bearing No. dtd. 31.03.2000 had been filed in advance or prior to the receipt of goods. There is no evidence that the said Shipping Bill was not submitted to him on 311.03.2000 and Examination Report recorded and signed by the Inspector on 31.03.2000 and the Let Export Order/Out of Charge Order, were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner on 31.03.2000, the Appraiser's Examination Order which could be issued only after the receipt of the goods as per Para 5.6 of the Public Notice No.16/2000-Cus, was of dtd. 31.03.2000 and when the Inspector also had signed the Examination Report on 31.03.2000 and further there was no reason or material before the Appellant indicating about the non-receipt of the goods on 31.03.2000, there could, therefore, be no occasion with the appellant to suspect that the Examination Report duly signed and submitted by the Inspector on 31.03.2000 on bonafide belief that the goods had actually been examined physically by the Inspector as it was his duty to do so. The Let Export/Out of Charge was also countersigned in good faith by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
