Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (5) TMI 1438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the direction of the Tribunal vide final order dated 19/05/2005. The issue involved in these appeals is relating to liability of both the appellants who for penalty under Customs Act, 1962. The appellants as officers of Customs were involved in processing of export goods, and alleged to have abetted an improper transaction which will render the goods liable for confiscation. Such action of abetting was held to be proved against both the appellants by the Original Authority who imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively on the appellants under Section 114 (iii) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Zap Fashion, New Delhi have filed 10 shipping bills on 15/06/2001 under DEPB-cum-drawback ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thority recorded that, being a qua-judicial authority it is sufficient for him to examine "preponderance of probability", and proof beyond doubt as required in criminal proceedings are not required to be considered. 3. The learned Counsel for Shri Rajiv Kumar Meharwal, submitted that the Department initiated disciplinary proceedings in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the appellant. The disciplinary Authority on conclusion of the proceedings found the appellant guilty of violation of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and ordered reduction of pay by 5 stages for a period of 5 years. On appeal, Commissioner of Customs (Exports), as Appellate Authority, set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and exonerated of appellant, of all charge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orted in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 273 (Tri. - Del.). 5. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the Original Authority. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The only point for decision is the liability of the appellant for penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act for their act/omission during the course of their performance as customs officers, dealing with export cargo. It is seen that the Original Authority has recorded that the documents which are central part of the proceedings were not available, to be supplied to the appellants. The records of the original let export order certificates were also not available and could not be supplied. The Original Authority proceeded to examine various case laws and a....