9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities, factually he has produced documents which indicated mis-declaration of the consignments which were cleared earlier. The said mis-declaration of the value as well as quantity is concerned with Mr. Phirozebhai, whom the appellant was unable to present before the authorities. The appellant was, in my view, aware of the mis-declaration of the value and the description of the goods of the consignments in question in this appeal as well as for the earlier consignments. Hence retraction of the statement would not improve the case of the appellant before this Tribunal. Secondly, if the appellant had nothing to hide, his action of producing some other person as Phirozebhai before the investigating authorities itself indicate that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant had no role to play and had filed the documents as per the instructions and advice of client. It is his submission that the provisions of Section 112 are not attracted in this case as there was no abetment from him. He would submit that the appellant had given all the information available with him to the authorities. He would submit that the retraction of the statement of the appellant was before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He would submit that once the main statement has been retracted nothing survives as there is no other corroborative evidence or the appellant has been implicated by the co-noticees or any one. It is his submission that the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority that he indulged in u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods liable for confiscation and the appellant being an employee of CHA whether he is liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. In my considered view, the Tribunal in the appellant's case in the earlier round of litigation had remanded for consideration of the points raised by the advocate, that the appellant had retracted the statement given by him and the adjudicating authority has not considered the same in proper perspective. It is the case of the appellant that once the statements made by him are retracted there is no evidence which is forthcoming to implicate him in the case and he could be penalized under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In my considered view the submissions made by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
