ARVIND KUMAR Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has come up for quashing of the order of the Custom Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Northern Bench, New Delhi (respondent No. 1) dated 15-5-2000 (Annexure 15 to the writ petition). Whereby the application under Section 129E of the Customs Act for waiver of pre-deposit penalty of the petitioner in both the appeals No. dated 10-11-2000 has been disposed of. Heard Shri S.C. Budhwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Gulati, learned Additional Standing Counsel, Government of India for the opposite parties. Both of them agreed that this petition may be disposed of at the admission stage.

(2.) Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at this stage as per rule of the Court.

(3.) It appears that a proceedings under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was initiated against the petitioner along with Mahendra Goel and Vijai Saxena for the alleged smuggling of mobile phones, its accessories and computer parts of foreign origin. It has been alleged that with the help and connivance of the petitioner who was posted at Babatpur Airport, Varanasi, mobile phones and computer parts were being smuggled from Kathmandu to Varanasi and then from Varanasi to Delhi without declaration and clearance under Section 77 of the Act, for the aforesaid allegation. The petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 6-10-1997 in a contemplated Departmental proceeding. He was served with a show cause notice dated 24-2-1995 as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112 of the Act. Consequently, he filed his show cause stating inter alia, that he was on leave on 17-8-1997 and 24-8-1997 and on 1-9-1997 was on preventive duty and was not entrusted with the duty of clearance of passenger baggages which was to be performed by the Baggage Officer posted at Customs counter, and thus, he could not be held responsible for clearance of the alleged seized goods. The Commissioner of Customs (General), having heard the matter, vide order dated 30-11-1999 passed separately in original case No. 31/A&R/V2/99 and original case no. 32A & 3V2/99, imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2 lacs in each under Section 11B of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred two separate appeals before respondent no. 1 on 5-1-2000 along with application under Section 129E of the Act for the waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on him. The learned Tribunal having heard the parties. By the impugned order dated 16-5-2000 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/in each case on or before 16th August, 2000 and to report compliance by 24th August, 2000, failing which the appeal shall be dismissed without any further notice.