9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t established by the appellant herein. The discussion in the Show Cause Notice as well as the impugned order points out that during examination, the persons were present, who later on absconded, which per se would not tantamount to breach of Regulation 5(1)(i)(n) because, there is nothing on record to suggest that they had gained unauthorized access into the premises. It is admitted that they had presented themselves on being called for examination, were also within the reach of the officers, who only later on absconded and this would not amount to unauthorized access into the premises. In any case, it is not the case of the Department that those two persons had gained unauthorized access and that the appellant had helped in any way, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the appellant herein that since the appellant was responsible for controlling the entry of persons, etc., but the personnel of the appellant were not verifying the identity cards of the persons, according to the Revenue, the same had resulted in violation of Regulation 5(1)(i)(n) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, penalty as also cancellation of Public Notices. 1.2 Upon adjudication, the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII vide impugned Order-in-Original imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- for violation of Regulation 5(1)(n), but however, withdrew the other proposals in the Show Cause Notice. 2. Heard Dr. R. Sunitha Sundar, Learned Advocate appearing for the assessee-appellant and Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice as well as the impugned order points out that during examination, the persons were present, who later on absconded, which per se would not tantamount to breach of Regulation 5(1)(i)(n) because, there is nothing on record to suggest that they had gained unauthorized access into the premises. It is admitted that they had presented themselves on being called for examination, were also within the reach of the officers, who only later on absconded and this would not amount to unauthorized access into the premises. In any case, it is not the case of the Department that those two persons had gained unauthorized access and that the appellant had helped in any way, in accommodating the unauthorized access or exit from the scene. 4. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
