9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en though the goods on paper were consigned to Mathura - The learned Advocate for the Appellant made a feeble attempt to establish the fact that the goods were received at Mathura and in support a sample re-ware housing certificate issued by the departmental officer enclosed with the submissions. There is no merit in the argument of the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the goods were received at Mathura. The inescapable conclusion is that the imported goods were diverted to Surat and the Appellant was in the knowledge of the same as none of the statements were challenged by way of cross examination nor retracted. The imposition of penalty on the Appellant, who is an employee of CHA, appears to be harsh - the ends of justice wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned Advocate Shri H.R. Shetty for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant is an employee of CHA M/s Thawardas Wadhumal, who has been penalised for alleged involvement in diversion of the imported goods meant to be used by M/s D.D. Trading Co. at Mathura. It is his contention that as per the direction of M/s D.D. Trading Co., acting on behalf of the CHA, the Appellant co-ordinated in the delivery of the imported goods, after clearance from Nhava Sheva, Port to the destination at Mathura. It was not within his knowledge that the goods would be diverted in the local market at Surat instead of sending to their Mathura unit. It is his contention that the Department could not establish that the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. On a query from the Bench about the appeals, if any, by other Appellants, the learned Advocate for the Appellant replied in negative. The allegation against the main noticee i.e. M/s D.D. Trading Co. (100% EOU) is that, the said unit had imported 17 consignments in January 2002 for its utilisation at 100% EOU at Mathura, but diverted the same to Surat market. The defence of the Appellant is that as a Manager of CHA, their role is limited to the extent of compliance of import formalities at the Port and at the request of the importer, they organized transport of the goods from Nhava Sheva Port to the importer s unit at Mathura. In support, they have referred to the letter dt.07.01.2002 issued by the importer M/s D.D. Trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
