9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order, whereby penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The penalty was imposed on the appellant, as he was working at that time as Inspector of Customs and he has taken the sample of the goods in question which were subsequently found to be mis-declared in respect of valuation to avail the higher draw back. The allegation is that without the direction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnment at the oral direction of superintendent of Customs and which were subsequently placed on the file and shown to the higher authorities. It is also submitted that market authority marked to him and he could not find any person who was dealing with the similar goods, therefore, he requested to his colleague R.K. Saxena, Inspector of Customs who procured the trade opinions which were endorsed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Tribunal to submit that for mere dereliction of duty penalty under duty of Customs is not sustainable. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. M. Naushad reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 464 (Tri.-Bang.). 3. Learned SDR emphasized the findings given by the Commissioner of Customs. He also submitted that as the appellant had not made any market inquiry and endorsed the trade opinions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h per container. Shri R.K. Saxena in his statement admitted these facts. We find that Shri R.K. Saxena who was co-noticee in these proceedings but no penalty was imposed on Shri R.K. Saxena. The present appellant who was working as a Inspector of Customs withdrawn the samples and the same was shown to the higher authorities and he was directed to make the market inquiry and in his statement he adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
