2019 (2) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....carrying out the profession of valuers of land, building, plant & machinery since 2004. Appellant is empanelled as Chartered Engineer by the respondent in the category of Mechanical as per Public Notice No. 26/2014, dated 14-11-2014. In October 2016, the Commissioner of Customs issued examination orders to the Customs Officers of appraising group under Cochin Commissionerate for "inspect the lot, open,..." etc. of used Digital Multifunctional Printer/Devices imported through Cochin Port by Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata and M/s. Ushma Parag Boghani. As per the existing practice, goods were subject to examination by customs authority with the assistance of the Chartered Engineer and the valuation report was also furnished. As a part of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing a Writ Petition No. 11434/2017 and the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 19-7-2017 directed the respondent to reconsider the issue of suspension in time bound manner and directed the appellant to file appeal before the Appellate Authority and thereafter the appellant filed the appeals before the Tribunal which is numbered as C/21185/2017 & C/21186/2017 and the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20034-20038/2018, dated 7-11-2017 allowed the appeals. Thereafter as per the judgment of the High Court, the Department was bound to reconsider the order of suspension within one month from the said decision. Thereafter the appellant made detailed submission before the respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scriminatory in nature. He also submitted that the procedure for conducting the inspection was followed as per the Circular No. 4/2008-Cus., dated 12-2-2008 issued by C.B.E. & C. as well as the guidance and instructions of the officers who were present at the site. The report of the inspection was accepted by the Customs Officer who countersign the report. 4. On the other hand the Learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant has been very casual in performing his duties. He further submitted that he had only inspected 25% of the machines and not the 100%. He further submitted that the Chartered Engineer appointed for the purpose is expected to inspect each machine for its functionality, expected life span, reco....