TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the applicant, it reveals that the subject matter before the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act is in respect of offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code or alternatively under Section 34 read with Section 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code apart from the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Offence of criminal misconduct is alleged against the petitioner, who happens to be Custom Appraiser. According the prosecution case, the applicant being Custom Appraiser has aided and abetted in commission of offence by the co-accused. Allegations made by the prosecution are to the effect that accused persons s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of exciseable goods. The learned Counsel for petitioner draw by attention to paragraph 39 of the said show-cause notice which reads thus : "39. NOW THEREFORE, Shri Mohammed Imran Arif Chasmawala, Shri. Mohammed Gouse Kareem, Shri. Ramesh S. Pandey or any other person who claim the ownership of the goods under seizure are required to show cause to the Adjudicating Authority i.e. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai having his office at 2nd Floor, new Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038, as to why :- (a) the 4959 pieces of wrist watches valued at Rs.1,09,36,000/- (MV) under seizure, recovered and seized from the consignment covered by Bill of Entry no. 727840 dated 04.12.2006, filed in the name of M/ s. Ratan En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licant. Penalty was imposed on him in that departmental enquiry vide Order dated 11/03/2014 by the Commissioner of Customs (GEN) and the appeal challenging that penalty imposed on the applicant in the departmental enquiry came to be dismissed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Zone-I vide Order dated 24/09/2014. Even the Central Administrate Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the present applicant challenging penalty imposed on him in the departmental enquiry. But the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 20th December 2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12403 of 2018 was pleased to exonerate the applicant from the charge held to be proved against him. My attention is drawn to paragraph 27 and 28 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fide intent or animus to cause wrongful gain to the importers and the petitioner, lead to a legitimate inference that the act on the part of the petitioner was the result of negligence and carelessness. It falls short of "misconduct"." 5. While allowing this petition, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph 31 (iii) held that the finding of misconduct recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of reduction in pay by three stages stands quashed and set aside. With this, the learned Counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the Order dated 21/10/2013 passed by the Honourable Apex Court whereby he was permitted to apply to the learned trial Court for discharge, at the time of fram....