3] On the other hand, Ms Neeta V. Masurkar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioner were of serious nature. The petitioner, in his reply to the authorities, had, in fact, admitted that he had signed certain documents/invoices without indicating the date under his signatures or using the official seal. She further submitted that certain vital documents, which were to remain in the custody of the petitioner were found to be missing. As a result, there was not merely breach of procedures in the matter of exports but such breach facilitated or would have facilitated exports, in the manner which was not above board. Ms Masurkar submitted that there was no breach in compliance with the procedures prescribed. The dissent note was duly furnished to the petitioner, the petitioner's explanation was also duly taken into consideration, full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and there is really no cause to complain about any failure of natural justice. Ms Masurkar submitted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, she submitted that only a minor penalty has imposed upon the petitioner and the CAT, in a reasoned decision, has upheld the penalty so imposed. For all these reasons, she submitted that this petition may be dismissed.
