TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e office of Commissioner of Customs (Cargo) at Sahar, Andheri (E), Mumbai. The respondent on the basis of Intelligence Inputs came to know that certain Calcutta based firms were exporting garments made out of cheap quality velvet in the guise of garments made of flocked fabric in fulfilment of export obligation. The value of the goods covered under nine shipping bills was Rs. 2,62,28,525/-. During re-examination of the said goods under panchnama on 27-5-1997 certain discrepancies were noticed about the quality of the fabric used and poor stitching. Further the total quantity found during the re-examination was 10,089 pieces as against the declared quantity of 34,137 pieces indicating a shortage of 27,048 pieces. The petitioner in his statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant for our purpose, which is reproduced below : "Article of Charge-I : Shri. J.N. Meena, Appraiser while functioning as Appraiser at Frere Basin Shed, Docks, Mumbai during May, 1997 had failed to supervise the examination of the goods and countersigned the Examination Report given by the Examiner Shri R.K. Batra, Examiner without physically examining the goods covered under the aforesaid 9 DEEC Shipping Bills filed by M/s. Limton Electroc Optics Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, totally valued at Rs. 2,62,28,525/- (FOB) under DEEC Scheme. The goods covered by the aforesaid 9 Shipping Bills said to have been examined by Shri R.K. Batra, Examiner did not conform to the specifications as appearing in the Shipping Bills and were found to be sub-standard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-sheet resulting in a delay of 10 years without any justification. The Disciplinary Authority however, granted a personal hearing to the petitioner on 7-4-2010. 5. The Disciplinary Authority in the said disagreement note held that the Article of Charge-I against the petitioner was proved in view of the findings given in his order dated 1-10-2010. It is seen from the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 1-10-2010 that it is a detailed and reasoned order in which it has been observed that the petitioner in his own statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had specifically admitted to have countersigned the Examination Reports for the shipping bills and had given Late Export Orders (LEOs) to the same. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it cannot be said that provisions contained under CCS (CCA) Rules have not been strictly complied with. No procedural flaw or violation of any statutory rule is pointed out to us. It also cannot be said that principles of natural justice were not observed. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had specifically admitted to have countersigned the Examination Reports for the impugned shipping bills as also to have given Let Export Order to the same in accordance with his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said statement was not retracted by the petitioner. It is also noted that there was only one prosecution witness whose statement was taken o....