By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 30, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2007 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.

The Bench after going through the records and submissions observed thus –

+ The order does not speak of what were the goods in the unaccompanied baggage. The Inquiring Officer has recorded that both the passengers denied having imported any unaccompanied baggage. The authority has examined the matter very casually .

+ Both the passengers Shri.CheenapullyBappu and ShriBasheerManket stated that no CHA was authorized by them to file BDFs. But the Inquiring authority did not bring out the contents of the statement. He merely recorded that only two employees of the CHA who were Shri Anil Sanas and ShriSalim S. Lalani were involved.

+ The inquiry report is not only cryptic but also depicts failure of duty. The inquiring authority should have examined whether the passengers unaccompanied baggage were dealt by any stranger or persons known to passengers. He acted very casually. That was not done.

+ In the meantime 11 years have passed. Truthfulness of the result of inquiry is in doubt. Therefore we are compelled to request the learned Chief Commissioner, Customs to conduct an inquiry as to the reason why such casual exercise has been made by the authorities below.

+ When there is denial of passengers as to the appointment of CHA, the baggage should not have been handed over to anybody . Looking into the security and safeguard measures prescribed by Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is high time that the officers having casual approach in discharge of their duty should be well alarmed and warned not to frustrate the object of the statute.

The Revenue appeal was dismissed.

In passing : The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious – Albert Einstein  

(See 2017-TIOL-2682-CESTAT-MUM)