9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d two cardboard boxes containing the personal effects as unaccompanied baggage of one Ms. Birgitte Arnak Pedersen at Chennai Port for export to Denmark. The said passenger has a Danish Passport and the said consignment along with the Shipping Bill No.0625691 dated 03.02.2004 were examined in the presence of one Mr. G. Ramasamy representing the CHA and during such examination it was found that there were six objects, namely three numbers of metal ornaments, two numbers of metal belts and one idol in a glass case, apart from the personal effects of the passenger. Since some of the objects looked very old they were sent for examination by the Department of Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to find out whether they are antiques or not. On exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant facts were noted. It was held that a personal hearing was given to one Mr. R. Ramachandran, Branch Manager and authorized signatory of CHA, who appeared for personal hearing on 30.12.2004 and submitted his written submissions. In the said written submissions, it was stated that the CHA was having lack of technical knowledge of antique and as such, there is no wilful misdeclaration or misstatement. On those facts, the finding by the Adjudicating Authority is that the passenger has stated in her reply that CHA was aware of the contents of the unaccompanied baggage. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority found that before preparing the custom documents, the CHA should have ascertained the antique nature of Teracotta Buddha idol by referri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le preparing the documents, the appellant must have noticed the items and should have guided the passenger as well as the department. Instead of doing so, the appellant declared the Buddha idol as plastic goods and did not mention the other items, namely, metal bells and metal ornaments, in the export documents. The Appellate Authority also did not accept the contention of the appellant whereby the certification by ASI and its valuation was disputed, since such questions, which were factual in nature, were not raised before the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the appellant that they were totally ignorant about the nature of the case. However, considering the overall situation and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs" 10. In our considered view, the appellant has failed to discharge his duty in terms of clause 13(d) of the Regulations. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on a judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Moriks Shipping and Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T 577(Tri-Chennai). The said judgment was rendered on totally different facts, inasmuch as in that case the goods declared by the exporter in the relevant shipping bill was Organic dye intermediate G-salt, whereas on detail examination of the case by the officer of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
