AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 607
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CAO No 149/2007/CAC/CC/KAP dated 01.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has held as follows: 1) "The goods entered for export under Shipping Bill Nos 526019, 5226025 and 5226028 all dated 31.05.2002 are confiscated under Section 113(d) read with the Section 113(l) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2) The drawback claimed in respect of the past exports under Shipping Bill No 2333201, 5223202 & 5223203 all dated 17.05.2002, 5224631, 5224646 & 5224659 all dated 25.05.2009 is rejected. 3) I also impose the following penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. a. Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Shri Krishnam Raju, The prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rim order referred above directed the revenue to file separate appeals making the said persons as respondent. 2.2 As directed these appeals have been filed and since these appeals have been filed with the delay of 9 years and 11 months, applications for condonation of delay too have been filed. 2.3 Rule 6A of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 reads as follows: "6A. Notwithstanding the number of show cause notices, price lists, classification lists, bills of entry, shipping bills, refund claims/demands, letters or declarations dealt with in the decision or order appealed against, it shall suffice for purposes of these rules that the appellant files one Memorandum of Appeal against the order or decision of the authority below, along....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, who, after seeing the same had signed on the Annexure-C attached to the Shipping Bills. He further stated that the goods were examined and samples were drawn in the presence of CHA & Superintendent Shri K.K. Sharma. He stated that when he examined / inspected the goods, the said goods were in order and the samples drawn and shown to Dy. Commissioner / Docks were not old or used garments. However, on showing the samples drawn under panchnama dt. 12.06.2002 from export consignment of M/s. Lovely Enterprises (wherein package Nos. (1) and (22) were examined by him under Shipping Bill No.5226025/31.05.2002) he stated that they are not similar or identical to the goods initially examined by him. He also identified Shri R.G. Gawde during the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner and therefore, should have seen the samples during examination. It is also observed by the Committee that the Let Export Order was given by Shri Sharma, Supdt. and SDF for the shipping bills in question were also signed by him and he admitted having signed them. It is therefore to be construed that he deliberately kept himself from the examination being fully aware of the fraud being committed by the exporter and allowed the goods to be cleared for export. 35. It is clear from the above discussion that Shri Shirkar and Shri K.K. Sharma had played active role in the fraud committed by the exporter, in as much as the samples stated to be drawn by Shri M.V. Shirkar (Preventive Officer) and shown by him to the Dy. Commissioner at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsiders the claim that the goods were examined initially before shifting, the possibility of their character being different upon recall, does raise many questions. Unfortunately, these questions were never raised in the investigations, nor any attempt made to find out the answers. An Adjudicating Authority cannot substitute or fill in the loopholes, and therefore the benefit of doubt is extended to the two officers, as far as action under Customs Act is concerned. It is a different matter altogether, for initiating action under the Conduct Rules. 82. The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CC Bangalore Vs N M Naushad [2007 (210) ELT 464 (Tri Bangalore)] held that officers failure to perform their duty of scrutinizing/ examining the d....