9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for penalty under Section 112 (a) as also (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The role attributed to the appellant by the adjudicating authority is that appellant being an employee of CHA filed bill of entry for clearance of radio cassette recorders, crockery, etc. imported in the name of one of M/s. Idol Enterprises and the said consignment was mis-declared in respect of value as well as quantity. The appellant's statements were recorded and penalty was imposed on him for abetment of the mis-declaration of value and quantity of the goods. 4. Learned counsel would draw my attention to the facts of the case and tried to impress that apart from filing of bill of entry, processing of the documents the appellant had no role to play and had file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation and mis-declaration of the goods. It is his further submission that the appellant knew Phirozebhai very well and was delivering the consignments to Phirozebhai after the clearance. He produced some other person before the authority as Phirozebhai, which would indicate that he had something to hide. 6. The learned counsel would submit in rejoinder that a person impersonating Phirozebhai has not rendered the goods liable for confiscation and hence penalty imposed is not correct. 7. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the appellant has acted or omitted to act in the manner which would render the goods liable for confiscation and the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g some other person as Phirozebhai before the investigating authorities itself indicate that he had something to hide and was not cooperating with the authorities to ascertain the mis-declaration of the value as well as description of goods. Non presenting of Mr. Phirozebhai, whom the appellant knew very well, itself would indicate that he wanted to shield Mr. Phirozebhai from the authorities. By doing so, he committed an omission in the investigation carried out by the authorities. 9. I find that the adjudicating authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the appellant has to be penalized under the provisions of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
