9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder No.932/2007 dated 7.8.2007. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: (a) The appellant was working as inspector in the Bangalore International Airport during the period 2.6.2002 to 13.11.2002. One Shri Y. Raju was working as a contingent in the Bangalore Airport Customs office and he was acquainted with the appellant. It also appears that on certain occasions, the appellant has used the said Shri Y. Raju for getting some personal work done at his residence. (b) On 13.6.2003, Shri Y. Raju was found removing unauthorisedly from the Airport two consignments one valued about Rs.6.5 lakhs, another valued about Rs.38.36 lakhs. As per the version given by Shri Y. Raju, the consignment valued about Rs.6.5 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed that the said phone was in use by the appellant). (e) In the first round of litigation when the matter came before the Tribunal, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) insofar as the same related to the appellant was set aside on the ground that no opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements have been relied upon was given. (f) In the de novo proceedings, the original authority vide order dated 29.4.2009 held the appellant guilty of abetment of smuggling and imposed a penalty of Rs.3/- lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. On appeal by the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 18.11.2011 confirmed the findings of abetment but reduced the penalty to Rs.1/- lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ju in the presence of independent witnesses has not been challenged. Shri Abdul Kader has not retracted his statement. The appellant was using a cell phone which was in the name of Shri B.M. Veeresh which stands confirmed even during cross-examination. There were calls from his residence number to the said cell phone. Further, he submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has drastically reduced the penalty from Rs.3/- lakh to Rs.1/- lakh and therefore he seeks full deposit of the penalty amount. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that on 13.6.2003, two consignments valued over Rs.44 lakhs were successfully and clandestinely removed from the airport by Y. Raju who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
