TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Customs (General), Mumbai. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on arrival of un-accompanied baggage, two separate baggage declaration form - (i) BDF No. 1048 dated 23.11.2009 was filed in the name of Shri Shahul Hameed Shabu, and other (ii) BDF No. 1032 dated 18.11.2009 was filed in the name of Shri Riyaz Ahmed Niyaz Ahmed. The goods had arrived by separate container, imported by separate person(s) named above. On some specific information, the officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) examined the said consignments and both the assessees. As regards BDF No. 1048, the goods were declared as used household items like glassware/crockery, kitchenware/ cutlery etc. The details of the same are shown in the table below: -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....032. 2.2 The adjudicating authority after granting personal hearing to the parties and after perusing the particulars and records, found that Khan Abdul Aziz alias Salman is the mastermind and key conspirator behind the smuggling racket, who misused the unaccompanied baggage mode for smuggling, by not declaring the high value goods and courier parcels by way of mis-declaration of description and value of the goods. It was further found that Riyaz Ahmed Niyaz Ahmed and Shri Shahul Hamed Shabu lent their passports to Shri Khan Abdul Aziz knowing fully well that, the same would be utilized for clearing unaccompanied baggage, which did not belong to them. They have signed the BDF and also on other Customs related documents. Other person name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment of Rs. 1.10 crores and further granted immunity from redemption fine (in lieu of confiscation) in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs and also granted immunity from penalty in excess of Rs. 5 lakhs. 3.1 Further, as regards Shri Abu Jani and Sandeep Khosla, Settlement Commission settled the dispute vide Final Order No. 48/Final Order/CUS/RKT/2011 dated 13.4.2011 at the customs duty of Rs. 10,94,055/- and further holding that no interest is payable as the goods seized were provisionally released on payment of duty which was more than the duty demand and further granted immunity from redemption fine in excess of Rs. 1,50,000/- and granted immunity from penalty in excess of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3.2 It is further evident from the impugned order tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer (CO) with the CHA/Importer. During the inquiry proceedings, none of the witnesses has confirmed the fact that the act of omission and commission on part of the CO was with mala fide intention. Neither any evidence has been brought on record, nor has it been established during the oral inquiry that any illegal gratification was offered to the CO or any pecuniary gains were obtained by her. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority found that there is no violation of Rule 3(1) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1984 and as such, the charge was held as not proved. 3.4 The learned Counsel further points out that once the dispute is settled with Settlement Commission with regard to the same transaction, the dispute stands settled as to all the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f penalty on Departmental Officers, on allegation of abetment in fraud, where the officers had examined only 10% of the goods at factory, package no. certified and noted the particular packet numbers in ARE-1, samples were withdrawn from the exported goods. It was found that there is no evidence to show that the particular packets or samples were other than the declared goods. In view of no statements available of the officer, it was held that there is no evidence to show that the act of commission or omission amounted to aiding and abetting the importation of goods. It was further observed that no statement is available implicating the respondents in fraudulent activities of the exporter and accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue was dismi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers. The Counsel for the respondent officers further points out that departmental proceedings against them under the CCS Rules. Proceedings in respect of Shri V.M. Joshi has already been finalized and he has been penalized, whereas, the proceedings against Shri A.A. Salkar is presently pending before the authorities and it is also pointed out that Mr. Salkar has since retired in April, 2010. It is also informed that Mr. Joshi has also retired on 31.10.2012. The Counsel for the respondent officers also relies on the ruling which is discussed herein above. Accordingly, they are pleading for dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that neither there is any charge of aiding or abetting on pa....