In a small relief to the Airport Authority of India, the CESTAT, Chennai bench has granted an opportunity to file an objection against the penalty orders passed in connection with the recently attempted smuggling of red handers case.
The appellant Airport Authority of India was granted custodianship inter-alia of the export cargo. During a surprise check conducted by the officers of the department at the Export Shed on 24.8.2019, it was noticed that the goods of various exporters were placed on a single trolley which can lead to mix-up of the cargo. Further, there was no proper segregation of the sterile area of the appellant and the other custodian M/s. Air India. It was time and again noticed that the security personnel were not properly verifying the ID cards of the people entering the customs area and the list of persons who have been issued ID was not furnished to the customs. During the investigation of a recent case of attempted smuggling of red sanders under the copy of the shipping bill dated 13.9.2019, it was noticed that the bond had been closed by the custodian without checking the LEO status electronically.
Judicial Member Ms. C S Sulekha Beevi found that though the appellant has filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice, they have not filed any objections/counter representations after receiving the copy of the inquiry report.
“Regulation 12 of HCCAR, 2009 provides for the procedure for suspension or revocation of approval and imposition of penalty,” the Tribunal said.
Quashing the impugned order, the Tribunal held that “As per Regulation 12(6), the appellant is to file a representation on the inquiry report within 30 days from the receipt of the inquiry report. Though various contentions have been raised in regard to the inquiry report, the appellant has not filed any representation against the inquiry report. It is also seen that the appellant can ask for an examination of witnesses, cross-examination of witnesses relied on the inquiry officer. The learned counsel has requested that the appellant be given a further chance to file objections/counter representation to the inquiry report so that they can adduce evidence to establish their defence. After considering the submissions made and the fact that the custodian is Airports Authority of India, which is a legal body, I am of the view that the appellant has to be given a further chance to establish their case.”
Advocate A Ganesh appeared for the appellants.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
