9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m these officers nor they were charged for imposition of penalties u/s 114 of the CA, 1962. If the officers who are respondents herein had not examined the cargo are not associated with the said shipping bills no. 5227082, 5227084 and 5227085, the adjudicating authority was correct in her conclusion that no penalty can be imposed on them u/s 114(iii) CA, 1962 - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - C/1221/2006 - A/86314/17/CB - Dated:- 19-1-2017 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri S J Sahu, Superintendent (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent Per: M V Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original CAO No: 88/2005/CAC/CC/NRN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allegations against Aar Cee International, but dropped the proceedings initiated against the three respondents in this appeal. 4. It is the case of the Revenue in this appeal memorandum that these three people need to be penalized. 5. Learned Authorised Representatives takes us through the show cause notice dated 10 th June 2003 and also corrigendum issued on 12 th July 2004 and submits that the original show-cause notice dated 10 th June 2003 had clearly brought on record that there was surreptitious clearance for exports and the three individuals, who are respondents in this appeal, were responsible officers of the customs department and they have allowed the consignments to be cleared without conducting proper checking. They w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The addendum dated 12 th July 2014 which is issued to the three officers herein needs to be reproduced and reads as under. In the Show Cause Notice of even number dated 10.6.2003 issued under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the above subject, after Para 20, the following para shall be inserted: 20(A). Shri A.K. Choudhary, the then Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Shri K.K. Sharma, Supdt.(Preventive) and Shri M.V. Shirkar, Preventive Officer are hereby called upon to show cause and explain to the Commissioner of Customs (EP), New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001, as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, for abetting in the surreptitious clearance for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the officers required the examination of their conduct in respect of only three shipping bills (5227082, 5227084 and 5227085) and the other three shipping bills (5226095, 5226096 and 5226097, which had actually been examined) had been left out of the perview of the Show Cause Notice I drop the charges against Shri A. K. Chaudhary, the then DY. Commissioner of Customs, Shri K.K. Sharma, Supdt, and Shri M.V. Shirkar, Preventive Officer since the cargo of ladies gowns has not been examined at all. 9. Against such factual findings, it is noticed that the Revenue has not controverted these facts in the grounds of appeal. In our considered view, if the officers who are respondents herein had not examined the cargo are not associated with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
