9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived from the Bangladesh Customs. Such plea as adopted herein is not at all tenable in the eye of law. There is nothing on record to show what disciplinary action has been taken by the customs department against the officers who were on duty during the period when such irregularities and infirmities in maintenance of Government records took place - it is also evident from the final report that the investigation cannot be proceeded with any further until documents pertaining to export are received from Bangladesh Customs Department. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: C/76086/2015-SMC, C/76087/2015-SMC, C/76088/2015-SMC - FO/76626-76625/2018 - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ranjan Paul under Section 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. I order Shri Sanjit Ranjan Paul to pay interest as accrued in terms of Section 28AB/28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. I impose a penalty of ₹ 15,05,299/- (Rupees fifteen lakh five thousand two hundred and ninety nine) only on Shri Sanjit Ranjan Paul under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. I impose a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) only on Shri Sanjit Ranjan Paul under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 11. I impose a penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakh) only on Shri Sanjit Ranjan Paul under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 12. I do not order confiscation of the imported goods in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in terms of Section 28AB/28AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. I impose a penalty of ₹ 4,15,877/- (Rupees four lakh fifteen thousand eight hundred and seventy seven) only on Shyamal Ghosh under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. I impose a penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakh) only on Shri Shyamal Ghosh under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 11. I do not order confiscation of the imported goods in the instant case since the same had already been cleared long back and not available for confiscation Hence the present appeals before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants had deposited the import duty at the Land Customs Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself, however the show cause notices were issued after three years i.e. in 2015. Hence, the proceedings are barred by limitation. 3. Ld. DR reiterates the orders of the Adjudicating Authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeals records. 5. The whole dispute is regarding irregularities in import through Land Customs Station, Khowaighat under Agartala Customs Division. The Bench on 05.04.2018 directed the ld.DR to file copy of the final enquiry report of the investigation. On 10.05.2018 copy of the final enquiry report C.No.IV(16)01/Cus/Misc/A R/15-16 dated 10.04.2018 which runs in 32 pages was submitted. The gist of the statements of the appellants as recorded by issuing summons are as under: (i) Shri Nitish Ranjan Pau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment every year. He told that BSF used to maintain Gate Register at the gate and always used to take signature of the importer or his agent. Shri Sanjit Ranjan Paul, Importer has sent all relevant documents (self attested) to investigation team at Shillong and could not appear due to his illness. All original Bill of Entries of Shri Sanjit Ranjan Paul, Importer was resumed and another importer Shri Ranjit Kr Paul submitted self certified copies of Bill of entries and original copies of B.E. was resumed. Shri Nitish Ranjan Paul, Importer has submitted self attested copies of Bill of entries as proof of import. 6. The relevant portions of the enquiry report dated 10.04.2018 are worth reproducing. It is probed beyond doubt with cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinarily exceed six months. In that case the six months period is over in first week of October, 2012. In the instant case the enquiry neither is confined within the Commissionerate nor within the country but a foreign country i..e the exporting country s documents is very vital for a logical conclusion of the case. Therefore, the six months period does not appear to be applicable in this case. Till date nothing has been received from Bangladesh Customs. Therefore the final investigation report is submitted along with available evidence in the case. It is not feasible to delay further for submission of the final report for want of the overseas enquiry report from Bangladesh Customs as one of the suspended officer Shri S.K. Mazumder, Insp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
