Page 194 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

584 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

(a) Mehul & Co. v. CC (General), Mum [2017 (357) E.L.T. 644 (Tri. -
Mumbai)]
(b) R.S.R. Forwarders v. CCE, Delhi [2018 (364) E.L.T. 541 (Tri. - Del.)]
(c) CC (General) v. KVS Cargo [2019 (365) E.L.T. 395 (Del.)]
(d) Principal CC (General), Mum v. Unison Clearing (P) Ltd. [2018 (361)
E.L.T. 321 (Bom.)]
(e) Pragati Overseas Agency v. CC, Kolkata [2018 (363) E.L.T. 169 (Tri. -
Kolkata)]
15. Learned Authorized Representative for the department, however,
supports the impugned order and contends that appellant was involved in the
manipulation of weight of the imported consignment in order to defraud the
Customs Revenue. Accordingly the appellant has failed in discharging their duty
as per CBLR.
16. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
case record.
17. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding cancellation of CHA
licence of the appellant. It is the contention of the Revenue that the appellant was
himself involved in the manipulation of weight of the imported consignment in
connivance with the importers, which is based on the investigation conducted by
DRI and weighment of detained consignments in respect of live Bills of Entry.
No doubt there is a variation in the declared weight of the imported consignment
and the actual weight thereof as contended by Revenue. When the weighment
slips are not signed by the employee of the Weigh Bridge Operator, Shri Ratan
Baidya, who has mainly been responsible for the weighment of the import cargo
and has given inconsistent statements on various occasions regarding as to who,
from the appellant side, has instructed him to manipulate the weight of imported
consignments. Initially, he stated that it was the employee of the appellant com-
pany, while on other occasion, he submitted that it was the Director of the com-
pany. Shri Ratan Baidya in his statement stated that there was another operator,
who was working at the Weigh Bridge. The department have not taken any
statement from him as to whether the wrights of the imported consignment were
being manipulated by the CHA on behalf of importer. The Director of the appel-
lant company has contradicted the statement of Shri Ratan Baidya regarding col-
lusion for suppression of weight of the imported consignments. Further, we find
that Shri Ratan Baidya in his statement stated and tendered 63 weighment slips,
however only five weighment slips were relied upon by the DRI for the purpose
of investigation. No explanation is contained for that, in the revocation order re-
garding misdeclaration of net weight declared in the documents pertaining to the
imported consignment. The statement dated 5-9-2016 of Shri Ratan Baidya is fur-
ther contradictory when he stated that from March, 2016 till date he has manipu-
lated weight of more than 100 containers of old and used garment handled by
the appellant company. However, in his statement dated 7-9-2016 he has admit-
ted and stated that the weight was being manipulated since last 3-4 months. This
indicates that at the earliest he would have issued manipulated slips from
May/June, 2016 and not March, 2016 as alleged. We also find from the statement
of Shri Ratan Baidya that computer system at CONCOR CFS contains the
weighment slips and which could have been retrieved from the computer sys-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  194