COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI VS MUHAMMAD ATEEQ PARACHA
2005 P T D 2425
[Karachi High Court]
Before Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI
Versus
MUHAMMAD ATEEQ PARACHA and 4 others
Customs Appeal No. 1 of 2005, decided on /01/.
th
August, 2005. (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----S. 196---Appeal to High Court---Limitation---Documents produced by both the sides in support of their case were not sufficient to give any definite finding on the question whether the copy of the order was burnished to the relevant authorities on the crucial date---High Court, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant held that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation.
(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----
---Ss. 168 & 196---Appeal to High Court---.Seizure of goods as smuggled---Record showed that Tribunal had failed to give specific and detailed findings on the points raised by the parties---Contention of the Department was that initially no documents were produced by the importers to show that the seized goods were not smuggled and subsequently, the documents, which were furnished, did not show conclusively that the seized goods were covered by the Bills of Entry produced by the importers---Importers, on the other hand stated that the goods were legally imported and were covered by the Bills of Entry produced by them---Order of the Tribunal showed that it had not given any detailed and specific finding on the point whether the. seized goods were actually covered by the documents produced by the importers or the documents pertained to some other goods and the importers had failed to establish that the goods were actually covered by said documents--Tribunal, instead of considering the particular facts of the case, had decided the issues by making reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court and had not even acted on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court---High Court,in circumstances, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the case to the Tribunal with the direction that the parties be heard afresh and speaking and specific findings be given in respect of each category of goods alleged to be smuggled by the Department and stated to be legally and validly imported by the importers---Tribunal was further directed to decide the appeal within four months from the date of receiving the copy of the High Court order.
Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.
Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi for Respondents.
ORDER
1. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellant, does not press this application for the reason that the application was submitted as a matter of abundant caution, while in fact the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this point and we find that the documents produced by the two parties in their support are not sufficient to give any definite finding that the copy of the order was furnished to the Director-General Intelligence and Investigation or Collector of Customs (Appraisement) on 9-10-2004. We, therefore, 'giving benefit of doubt to the appellant: hold that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of, the impugned order We find that the Tribunal has failed to give specific and detailed findings on the points raised by the parties. The case of the Department was that initially no documents were produced by the respondent to show that the seized goods were not smuggled and subsequently the documents, which were furnished, did not show conclusively that the seized goods were covered by the bills of entries produced by the respondent. On the other hand, the case of the respondent was that the goods were legally imported and were covered by the bills of entries produced by them perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not given any detailed and specific finding on the point whether the seized goods were actually covered by the documents produced by the respondent or the documents pertained to some other goods and the respondent attempted unsuccessfully to establish that the goods were actually covered by the documents on which reliance was placed. We further find substance in the contention of Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal that instead of considering the particular facts of this case, the Tribunal had decided the issues by making reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the impugned judgment itself the Tribunal has referred to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that, "It is settled law that a quasi-judicial order must be speaking order manifesting by itself that the Tribunal has applied its judicial mind to the issues and the points of controversy involved in the cases". However, the Tribunal has not acted on this principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the above circumstances, the impugned judgment, passed by the Tribunal, is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal with the direction that the parties may be heard afresh and speaking and specific findings be given in respect of each category of goods alleged to be smuggled by the Department and stated to be legally and validly imported by the respondent. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal within four months from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
M.B.A./C-33/KCase remanded.