Messrs SFS CORPORATION, LAHORE VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) and another
2005 P T D 1346
[Lahore High Court]
Before M. Bilal Khan and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ
Messrs SFS CORPORATION, LAHORE
versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) and another
Customs Appeal No. 71 of 1999, heard on 11/02/2005.
Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----S. 4---Public Notice No.19/93(A) dated 28-4-1993---Collector of Customs(Appraisement)wasnotvestedwiththejurisdictiontoconduct its proceedings in part behind the back of the importer and based its decision on information obtained throughprivate enquiry---Principles.
All Tribunals, Judicial or Quasi Judicial, must conduct their proceedings in presence of the parties. There is no concept that such Tribunals can, under the law, embark on private inquiries conducted behind the back of the party and base its decision on information obtained through such inquiry with which the party to the proceedings has had no opportunity to respond or rebut. In the circumstances, it is held that Collector of Customs (Appraisement) could not have conducted the proceedings or any part thereof behind the back of the importer or base its decision on information of which the importer had as no notice or opportunity to respond to or rebut.
Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.
A. Karim Malik for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 11th February, 2005.
JUDGMENT
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This appeal, under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, is directed against the order, dated 8-6-1998, passed by the Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax, Appellate Tribunal Lahore Bench, Lahore, (respondent No.2).
2.The appellant imported a consignment of refrigerators from Kuwait and on arrival the relevant Bills of Entry were filed by the appellant. The Customs Authorities relying upon a Public Notice bearing No.19/93(A), dated 28-4-1993, issued by the Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Customs House, Karachi, based their assessment on the outer gross capacity of the refrigerators rather than the declared capacity calculated on the basis of the inner measurement. Aggrieved by that the appellant made a representation, in this behalf to respondent No.1, which was turned down, vide order, dated 28-3-1989. The said order was challenged by the appellant before respondent No.1, by way of an appeal, whichwasturneddownvidetheimpugnedjudgment,dated8-6-1989.
3.Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon Paragraph No.6 of the impugned judgment 8-6-1989 has raised the following question during the course of the arguments:--
"Whether respondent No.1 was vested with the jurisdiction to conduct its proceedings in part behind the back of the appellant and base its decision on information obtained through a private enquiry."
4.Relevant portion of para. No.6 of the judgment, dated 20-5-1999 is reproduced hereunder:--
"In order to be sure that no injustice is done to the appellants, we took the appeal file to Custom House, Karachi where hearings of the Tribunal were held from 12 to 14 May, 1999 and discussed this issue in detail with the Assistant Collector Incharge there whoconfirmed that the refrigerators imported through Karachi Custom House are assessed/appraised strictly in line with the criterion laid down in the Public Notice and not otherwise."
5.There can be no cavil with the proposition that all Tribunals, Judicial or Quasi Judicial, must conduct their proceedings in presence of the parties. There is no concept that such Tribunals can, under the law, embark on private inquiries conducted behind the back of the party and base its decision on information obtained through such inquiry with which the party to the proceedings has had no opportunity to respond or rebut. In the circumstances, the legal question raised by the appellant is answered in negative and it is held that respondent No.1 could not have conducted the proceedings or any part thereof behind the back of the appellant or base its decision on information of which the appellant has as no notice or opportunity to respond to or rebut.
M.B.A./S-327/LOrder accordingly.