10.06.2014 Views

KRA DISCIPLINARY CASES 2004-2005 - Kenya Revenue Authority

KRA DISCIPLINARY CASES 2004-2005 - Kenya Revenue Authority

KRA DISCIPLINARY CASES 2004-2005 - Kenya Revenue Authority

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!