https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437245 A disciplinary finding of guilt was not perverse where the employee, though not personally examining goods, occupied a supervisory post and should have noticed the unusual manner in which export goods were moved for examination; the evidence supported a duty to exercise greater caution, supervision, and, if necessary, sampling or expert examination. The disciplinary penalty could not, however, be sustained where it was materially founded on an earlier adjudication penalty that was later set aside and the adjudication proceedings were dropped; the matter required fresh consideration of the effect of those later orders, including the impact on grave misconduct and pension-rule consequences. The penalty was therefore sent back for reconsideration. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 May 2023 14:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437245 A disciplinary finding of guilt was not perverse where the employee, though not personally examining goods, occupied a supervisory post and should have noticed the unusual manner in which export goods were moved for examination; the evidence supported a duty to exercise greater caution, supervision, and, if necessary, sampling or expert examination. The disciplinary penalty could not, however, be sustained where it was materially founded on an earlier adjudication penalty that was later set aside and the adjudication proceedings were dropped; the matter required fresh consideration of the effect of those later orders, including the impact on grave misconduct and pension-rule consequences. The penalty was therefore sent back for reconsideration. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 25 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437245