COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, GUJRANWALA VS SETH RASHID, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2352 (2005)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 162, 163 & 194-A---Appeal to High Court---Seizure of Viscose Rayon allegedly of foreign origin by Customs Authorities by carrying out a raid---Department had failed to controvert the evidence/material produced by respondents establishing lawful import of the goods into Pakistan---Raid itself carried out by the department was illegal being in violation of the mandatory provisions of Ss.162 & 163 of the Customs Act, 1969---Such facts had not been controverted by the Department before the High Court during course of proceedings of the appeal---Order of the Tribunal was based on facts and appreciation of material evidence available on record---No illegality had been pointed out in the impugned order of the Tribunal---No question of law requiring an expression of opinion for decision of High Court arose from the impugned order---Appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Izhar-ul-Haq for Applicant.

Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17th June, 2005.

JUDGMENT

SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 is directed against the order, dated 20-4-1999 passed by the Customs Central Excise Sales Tax Tribunal.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that custom authorities raided godowns situated in Gujranwala and seized Viscose Rayon weighing 30215.40 kgs. allegedly of foreign origin. In addition to the above goods, record was also seized. The Collector of Customs Central Excise, Gujranwala vide order-in-original, dated 8-1-1998 directed the confiscation of the said Viscose Rayon. However, the respondents were given an option to redeem the same on payments of customs duty and other taxes. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the respondents under section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969 against the said order-original, dated 8-1-1998 which was accepted by the Tribunal vide the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined available record.

4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that after considering the material and evidence on the record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Viscose Rayon was of a nature that was also locally manufactured and freely available in Pakistan and the department had failed to bring on the record any evidence to prove that 1,25,124. 57 Kgs. of Viscose Rayon was in fact of foreign origin which was purported to have been sold by the respondents. In respect of 30215.40 kgs. the respondents produced documents of its purchase from a local company along with documents of its lawful import including bills of entry and affidavits in support of the contention that the goods were lawfully imported in Pakistan. It has been held by the Tribunal by way of the impugned order that the department had failed to controvert the evidence/material produced establishing lawful import of the goods into Pakistan. Furthermore, it was held that the raid itself carried out by the department was illegal being a violation of the mandatory provisions of sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act, 1969. Incidentally this fact has not been controverted by the appellant department before this Court during the course of proceedings of the present appeal. It is clear and obvious that the impugned order is based on facts and appreciation of material and evidence available to it.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has relied upon photocopies of documents produced by the respondents: In response the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the original of such documents were produced before the learned trial Court in criminal proceedings arising from the same facts. Be that as it may, the department neither objected to the production of the said photocopies at the time, the same were produced nor denied the veracity of the same. Thus, this objection at this belated stage cannot be accepted.

6. No illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order which is essentially based on the appreciation of evidence available on the B record. No question of law requiring an expression of opinion for decision by this Court arises from the impugned order. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.

M.B.A./C-91/LAppeal dismissed.