9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in principal satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. There is no finding that there was a breach of provision of Section 33 of the Act. Already the appellant has suffered the punishment in the order for more than 40 days. It stands idle with huge infrastructure - also the Adjudicating Authority never disputed the fact that the appellant informed the Competent Authority from time to time about the breakdown of the trailer and the movement of the container. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Cus. Miscellaneous Application No. 75837/2019, 75836/2019 And Cus. Appeal No. 76268/2019 - MO/75826-75827/2019 And FO/A/75792/2019 - Dated:- 16-7-2019 - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the appellant submits as follows:- That, at the material time, the Customs Officers posted at the appellants CFS were headed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Sri S.K. Biswas, incharge of CFS Phonex Logistic Pvt. Ltd. On 10th March, 2018, the appellant was given a job under No. 3219/2018 dated 6th March, 2018 to move a container bearing No. SEGU 4330930 FROM Haldia Port to its container Freight Station at Paharpur Road. It was loaded on a trailer bearing Regn. No. WB29A 6223. The appellant was allowed to move the container from the port at late night on 10 th March, 2018. After loading of the container, the trailer left Haldia Port under security and pilot van. The trailer after covering a distance abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sealed. 100% examination of the goods was done. They were found to be in order. The statement of the driver of trailer no. WB 41A 4340 namely Mr. Jabbar Khan was recorded Mr. Jabbar Khan was an employee driver of Customs approved CFS viz. LCL (CFS). He stated that since the vehicle could not be repaired, container was transferred to trailer no WB41A 4340 and he drove the trailer loaded with the container to the appellants Container Freight Station. The officers of LCL (CFS) were also asked to give report of the incidence. It was reported that the trailer no. WB29A 6223 suffered a break down and it could not be repaired and the container had to be shifted on 13th March 2018 on trailer no.WB 41A 4340 to reach its destination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion granted. In the course of enquiry, it was alleged that the petitioner did not inform the status of breakdown, in writing, officially to the Assistant Commissioner posted at the appellant s CFS. The enquiry officer gave a report wherein it was mentioned that the appellant did not report about the incidence in writing to its officers. The other charges as to the security threat and shifting without permission, were not found to be true. It gave a report that the trailer suffered a break down. In the report it was stated that the appellant failed to bring the container within 6 hours and thus failed to fulfil the obligations cast under para 8.2 of the Public notice no. 7/2018, which directs the container to be brought with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded. It was not possible at the material time, to report in writing. Reporting in such circumstances is normally verbal which is subsequently, recorded. In the adjudication order, the Commissioner passed an order prohibiting the petitioner from doing any work for 180 days. The Commissioner s order is non-speaking. No dispute has been raised regarding the verbal intimations given from time to time and shifting of container took place on the basis of permission granted. No charge is made regarding non-compliance of Section 33 of the Customs Act, 1962. Shifting was done in the presence of officer posted at LCL (CFS) which is also a licensed Container Freight Station. There is no denial and dispute in the proceeding by Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Commissioner is non-speaking. There is no finding given by him. The order is passed contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and other reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496. Paragraph 47 of the Judgment may be referred to. There is no finding of fact in the order. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. I find that the enquiry report also does not discuss any evidence on which the finding in the Report is based. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India as reported in 2002 (7) SCC page 142 (para 7) held that mere noting in the report would not in principal satisfy the rule of suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
