MUHAMMAD ASLAM AZAD VS COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1949 (2002)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 156(1)(9)(90), 162, 163, 171 & 196---Seizure of vehicle---Appeal to High Court---According to Laboratory test report and photographs obtained from Forensic Science Laboratory, Chassis number of vehicle was found tampered with after Chemical treatment and "X" stood for digits which could not be deciphered---Documents attached with appeal were also produced before Department and before Tribunal--Appellant in a letter also produced copy of Pakistan Passport issued in the name of Importer of vehicle in question from whom it was purchased by appellant---Appellant also produced an import certificate issued by Government of Pakistan for import of the same vehicle and a copy of Vouchers whereby he had paid Customs duty and Sales Tax---Vehicle was registered in the name of appellant from Registration Office after purchasing same from its importer---From all said documents, it was clear that vehicle was imported by the person from whom it was purchased by appellant who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of vehicle---Vehicle was duly registered in England in the name of its importer who imported the same by payment of customs duties and other dues---In view of said peculiar circumstances of case, giving benefit of doubt in favour of appellant, his appeal was accepted.

Haji Abdur Razzaq v. Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 5 ref.

(b) Words and phrases---

----^`Deciphered', meaning and connotation.

Farhad Nawaz Lodhi for Appellant.

Khalil-ur-Rehman Abbasi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22^nd May, 2002.

JUDGMENT

BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---Through the instant appeal order, dated 4-3-2002 passed by Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad Bench-I has been assailed whereby order, dated 8-7-2001 passed by Addl. Collector, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Adjudication), Rawalpindi was upheld in appeal.

Briefly the facts of the case are that on 19-5-2001 vehicle bearing registration No.RIV-7420 Toyota Land Cruiser Model 1991 was seized by the Customs Staff under section 156(1)(9)(90) of the Customs Act. In response to notice under section 171 ibid, the appellant produced photo copy of bill of entry, dated 20-1-1993 issued by Collector of Customs, Quetta, photocopy of Passport of the Importer Muhammad Khurshid (Annex-D), photocopy of the registration book of the vehicle in United Kingdom (Annex-E), vehicle Entry Report, dated 16-1-1973 (Annex-F), Laboratory Report, dated 16-4-^'2001 (Annex-G) and copy of letter of Confirmation/verification of the documents from Customs at Quetta (Annex-H). The verification of these documents was sought by the Collectorate of Customs, Rawalpindi from the Customs Department at Quetta from Tuftan and the documents were found correct but according to the learned counsel, case of the appellant was decided by the learned Tribunal on the basis of Laboratory test report, dated 16-4-2001 (Annex-G) and photographs of Chassis number obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory wherein the Chassis number of the said vehicle were found tampered after chemical treatment.

Learned counsel for the appellant has raised/formulated the following law points for our consideration that:--

(a)??????? the seizure of vehicle was in violation of the provisions of sections 162, 163 and 171 of Customs Act;

(b)??????? the import documents were verified and found genuine and there is no evidence with the department to show that any other vehicle was imported against those documents except the one in dispute;

(c)??????? in absence of allegation that the Chassis number was tampered with by the appellant or mens rea on the part of the appellant could he be penalized and impugned judgment is in violation of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as PLD 1974 SC (5), Haji Abdur Razzaq v. Pakistan;

(d)??????? whether the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal is not contradictory to its own judgments pronounced in cases of similar nature wherein laboratory report and photographs were discarded and the seizure was declared illegal on the basis of Chassis plate found refitted?

(e)??????? was it not a case of no evidence and the appellant was bona fide purchaser and he discharged the onus of proof that the vehicle in dispute was lawfully imported by payment of customs duty?

The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the Department by arguing that the onus for payment of duty and lawful import of the vehicle was on the appellant which has not been discharged by convincing evidence; that no law point has been urged to interfere in the impugned judgment and the appeal is not competent.

We have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and also perused the record and examined the relevant provisions of law.

It is correct that according to the laboratory test report dated 16-4-2001 and photographs obtained from Forensic Science Laboratory the Chassis number of the vehicle was found tampered with after chemical treatment and "X" stands for digits which could not be deciphered. The dictionary meaning of word "deciphered" are `to make out; to detect; to reveal; to show forth' that word or report cannot be taken as it was definitely tampered with. The documents attached with the appeal were also produced before the Department and before the Tribunal. In notice under section 171 of Customs Act (Annex-A) Issued by Altai^. Hussain, Inspector the Chassis number of the vehicle has been mentioned as 800-7004395. Likewise in notice under section 26 ibid (Annex-B), the same Chassis numbers have been mentioned which shows the department officials were of the view the Chassis number of vehicle is the same. The appellant in letter (Annex-D) also produced the copy of Pakistani Passport No J099011 issued in the name of Muhammad Khurshid on 28-9-1992 and entry on the said passport (placed at page 22) ^C bears the endorsement of the vehicle bearing the same engine and chassis number. The vehicle bearing the same chassis number was registered in United Kingdom in the name of Muhammad Khurshid according to certificate Annex-E. He also produced an import Certificate, dated 19-1-1993 issued by Government of Pakistan for the import of the same vehicle which was valid up to 18-3-1999 (available at page 26). Bill of Entry, dated 16-1-1993 bearing the same chassis number issued by Collectorate of Customs, Quetta Balochistan has been attached as Annex-F page 27. The appellant has also produced the copy of vouchers whereby he had paid the customs duty and the sales tax in the Government Treasury. The vehicle was registered in the name of the appellant from the Registration Office of Rawalpindi on 11-11-1996 after purchasing the same from Muhammad Khurshid. From all these documents, it is clear that Toyota Land Cruiser Model 1991 bearing Engine No.0046027 and Chassis No. JT111TJ800700395 to the four digits was imported by Muhammad Khurshid from whom it was purchased by the present appellant. Even according to the laboratory report last four digits "4395" were not deciphered and the appellant could not be saddled with means rea that he smuggled the vehicle of which all the other particulars resemble with a vehicle imported by Muhammad Khurshid. Furthermore, there is also no evidence that Chassis plate was tampered with by the appellant. He claims to be a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle. It was duly registered in England in the name of Muhammad Khurshid who imported the same by payment of customs duties and the other dues. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, we, by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant accept his appeal. He is entitled for return of vehicle in dispute by furnishing surety bond as if at any stage it is found that some other vehicle was imported on those documents he would surrender the vehicle or he be penalized in accordance with law. Resultantly, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, dated 4-3-2002 and that of Additional Collector Customs, dated 18-7-2001 are set aside and the Addl. Registrar of this Court is directed to transmit the order of this Court to the Appellate Tribunal to modify its order accordingly.

H.B.T./M-1060/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.