KRA DISCIPLINARY CASES 2004-2005 - Kenya Revenue Authority
KRA DISCIPLINARY CASES 2004-2005 - Kenya Revenue Authority
KRA DISCIPLINARY CASES 2004-2005 - Kenya Revenue Authority
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Two Customs revenue officers irregularly processed and<br />
verified an entry facilitating clearance of some containers<br />
without payment of appropriate duty. <strong>Revenue</strong> amounting<br />
to Kshs2.8 million was lost. A subordinate staff member<br />
gave out the original of this same entry to a clearing agent<br />
facilitating the loss of the said entry, which had been<br />
irregularly processed and used to clear goods without<br />
payment of duty.<br />
PENALTY:<br />
The two revenue officers were dismissed for conspiracy to<br />
defraud and the subordinate staff retired in <strong>Authority</strong>’s<br />
interest for loss of confidence in her as an employee.<br />
___________________________________________________________<br />
2.1.5 Case Number: DISC/28/10/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Department: CUSTOMS SERVICES<br />
Station: NAIROBI-JKIA<br />
CHARGE:<br />
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE AUTHORITY<br />
& CONTRAVENTION OF SECTIONS 4.1.1, 4.1.4<br />
&4.1.9 OF THE <strong>KRA</strong> CODE OF CONDUCT<br />
PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE:<br />
A revenue officer at JKIA irregularly granted authority for<br />
transhipment of a consignment from JKIA-Nairobi to Moi<br />
Airport Mombasa when the release order clearly indicated<br />
the consignee’s address as Westlands in Nairobi. The goods<br />
were intercepted by the surveillance and targeting unit at<br />
the delivery gate on their way to Westlands. It was argued<br />
that since the importer was from Nairobi there was no<br />
intention to tranship the goods to Mombasa and the issue<br />
of transhipment did not arise as transhipment applies only<br />
where goods are transferred to another vessel destined to a<br />
foreign country. The officer’s actions were thus intended to<br />
evade duty payable.<br />
PENALTY: The officer was retired in <strong>Authority</strong>’s Interest.<br />
___________________________________________________________<br />
Disciplinary cases Page 5 of 13