9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the CHA had performed its part of the duties and no role in the forging of the bill of exchange - respondent’s direct involvement with the importer i.e. the beneficiary was not established - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CUSAA 62/2017 & CM APPL. Nos. 41557-58/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA MS. PRATHIBAM. SINGH JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms.Bhavya Dubey, Advocate. Respondent Through: None. O R D E R CM APPL. 41558/2017 (Condonation of delay) For the reasons stated, the delay of 50 days in re-filing this appeal is condoned. This application, accordingly, stands disposed of. CUSAA 62/2017 CM APPL. No. 41557/2017 This appeal by the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded though the respondent had failed to discharge its duties and responsibilities properly, yet a harsher punishment was not justified. The respondent's director had professed that they had been dealing with M/s. Anurag Trading Company, Kanpur since 2003, they had merely processed the documents and forwarded the same to the customs authority. It was the obligation of the customs authorities to examine applicability and satisfaction of the condition of the exemption notification and genuineness of the documents submitted by the importer. While examining the documents, it did not strike them and there was no reason for them to suspect that the exemption certificate was not signed by the competent authority or that it was forged. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a copy of the bill of exchange with zero customs duty duly signed by the then Custom officer. The CBI has also stated in the charge sheet that the respondent CHA had retained photocopies of the said bill of exchange for its office records and had forwarded the original copies of the same along with his bill to the importer for getting payments - thus clearly implying that the CHA had performed its part of the duties and no role in the forging of the bill of exchange. The respondent s direct involvement with the importer i.e. the beneficiary was not established. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix, we do not think that the order of the Tribunal on the question of proportionality or on facts, raises substantial question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
