2008 (5) TMI 66

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that he received unmarked wooden crates in the shed and did not forward the same for Customs examination, passing out goods without the permission of the Customs. The Commissioner concluded that he was responsible for de-stuffing of containers, warehousing in shed and for warding the goods for Customs Examination, delivery of the goods as per BDF after Customs pass out. That he received and kept seven wooden crates in excess of record and did not report nor forwarded the same for Customs Examination. That he also received such crates in the past and attempted removal of two seized wooden crates. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the excess packages or that he had been given any monetary or other consideration for the alleged activity. The appellant did not send any packages for Customs examination because it was not his job to send packages for Customs examination, which is done by importers or their agents, who make such request for their cargo and after suitable endorsement from the Central Documentation Office, he was supposed to instruct the clerks to permit the Clearing Agent to take the cargo for Customs Examination. The statements of the appellant have been cherry picked and dejointed statements were put together to the Show Cause Notice to show as if he did not discharge his duties properly. Regarding the allegation that the appellant had abetted in the a....