9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntelligence received by DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai a container TCKU 2967027 with Read Sanders under the Shipping Bill No. 7329931 dated 12/5/2009 was located at Speedy Multimodes Buffer Yard, JNPT, Nhava Sheva. The exporter was M/s. Disha International having IEC 0391160711. The container was examined on 20/21.05.2009 in presence of the Wild Life Inspector, Wildlife Preservation Office(Western Region) and found to contain 9.340 tons of wood logs purported to be red sanders. The same was seized under the provisions of the Custom Act, 1962. Representative samples of the wood logs were drawn for testing purpose and the same were forwarded to the Director, Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore. The Head, Wood properties and Us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , appellant also requested for cross examination of other persons who given the statement against the appellant which was not allowed by the Adjudicating authority. In this position there is no evidence of involvement of appellant in the alleged attempt of smuggling wood logs. 4. Shri. S.J. Sahu, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that various persons have given statements wherein the role of the appellant was clearly explained, on the basis of which involvement of the appellant is established. In the confessionary statement admitted the offence. Since confessionary statement corroborated with the statements of other persons, the retraction made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence to come to the conclusion as to who was the person producing forged and bogus signatures and stamp on the export documents. The adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the signature and stamp of the Central Excise Officer is forged without sending it to the handwriting expert. The conclusion at para 13.1 of the impugned order, the appellant had prepared and filed in the name of M/s. Disha International is not supported by any evidence on record. The adjudicating authority has erred in disallowing the appellant to cross examine witnesses on whose statement the department relied upon against the appellant at para 13.7. 15. I find that the adjudicating authority in the impugned Order in Original had alleged that: P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered themselves liable to penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962". 16. Further, I find that the appellant in his statement recorded on 21.05.2009 at para 3.4 of the impugned order admitted that he introduced himself to Shri Rajendra Jadhav as Sameer Singh on his meeting at Ghatkopar who had offered him the work of managing the booking of container, preparation of export documents, customs clearance for exporting a container of red sanders to Dubai for a monetary consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Further he stated that: that Shri Rajendra Jadhav booked container no. TCKU 2967027 which was sent to Karjat chowk as per the instruction of Nitin Jadhav,; that seals had been managed by Shri Nitin; that Nitin made the rubber stamps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
