Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S.32---Untrue statement---Fabric on physical examination were found printed less than 25% admissible to duty draw back @ 2.80% FOB under S.No.2(1) of Sch.1 of S.R.O. 172(I)/99 dated 22-3-1999 as against @ 5.80% claimed by exporter under S.No.4 of the same as provided in the explanation at the footnote of the S.R.O.---Effect---Covered area of printed fabric attracted the provision of S. 32, Customs Act, 1969.

Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th November, 2004.

JUDGMENT

ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---By this appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 the appellant have challenged the order, dated 7-2-2002 pissed by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.327 of 2000. The questions of law proposed in the amended memo of appeal read as under:--

(1) Whether any offence under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 has been committed by the appellant?

(2) Whether the dispute regarding the covered area of printed fabrics attracts the provisions of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969?

2. However, vide order, dated 6-11-2003 pre-admission notice of this appeal was issued only to examine the following point of law:--

"Whether the covered area of printed fabric attracted the provision of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969?"

3. Relevant facts of the case are that on 19-10-2000 the respondent issued show-cause notice to the appellant company containing following allegations against them:--

"On physical examination the goods were found printed less than 25% admissible to duty drawback @ 2.80% FOB under S. No.2(1) of Schedule 1 of S.R.O. 172(1)/99, dated 22-3-1999 as against @ 5.80% claimed by exporter under S. No.4 of the same as provided in the explanation at the footnote of the S.R.O. Had this misdeclaration not been detected, the Government would have suffered revenue to the extent of Rs.103,756. This misdeclaration is an offence under section 32 of 'the Customs Act, 1969, punishable under clause 14 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. This also contravenes the provisions of clause 3 of Export (Quality Control) Order, 1973 which is an offence under section 16 of the Customs, Act, 1969, and punishable under clause 9 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969."

4. On submission of reply, being dissatisfied, the case was proceeded before the respondent who passed the order-in-original, dated 7-11-2000 against the appellant wherein, he was declared guilty of misdeclaration and consequently penalty of Rs.1,10,000 was imposed upon them under sections 32 and clause 14 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, at Karachi also met with the same fate. However, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances the penalty imposed upon the appellant by order-in -original was reduced to Rs.50,000.

7. In view of the foregoing discussions the question of law framed by the Court is answered in the affirmative.

8. Foregoing are the reasons of our short order passed today in this appeal.

M.B.A./K-34/K Order accordingly.