COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN VS MOLA BAKHSH
2006 P T D 824
[Lahore of High Court]
Before Ali Nawaz Chowhan and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN
Versus
MOLA BAKHSH and another
Customs Appeal 38 of 2004, heard on 26/01/2006.
Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----S. 168---Seizure of vehicle liable to confiscation---Chassis number of vehicle comprised of 8 digits as per voucher reflecting its purchase from Central Military Stores Department in public auction---Registration Book containing same chassis number was recorded in such voucher---Appellate Tribunal set aside order-in-original after turning down the request of revenue for examination of vehicle from its dealer---Validity---Report of such dealer obtained by High Court showed that vehicle had 14-Digit chassis number, and that access to its model and year of manufacturing would not be possible through provided 6-digit chassis number---Tribunal had erred by relying on such voucher and brushing aside report of Forensic Science Laboratory---High Court set aside impugned judgment and remanded case to Tribunal for its decision afresh.
Ch. Sagheer Ahmed for Appellant.
C.M. Sarwar for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 26th January, 2006.
JUDGMENT
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.---This appeal arises under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 against the judgment, dated 15-4-2003 handed down by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at Islamabad.
2. The operative part of the judgment is reflected in its paragraph 5 which reads as follows:--
"After going through the record and hearing the learned counsel we find that the appellant's main submission regarding its purchase through public auction from Central Military Stores Depot, Rawalpindi is supported by the voucher issued by the selling Department. The voucher which is a transfer documents contains the same number comprising of 8 digits which was ultimately found by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad, after chemical examination. As the purchase voucher contains the same chassis number, which was subsequently recorded in the registration book, therefore, no adverse presumption against appellants could be drawn as has been done by the authorities below. The report by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad is also not absolute inasmuch as it does not indicate that the original number could not be developed or discerned. Mere detection that a number had been punched on the chassis cannot give rise to the-presumption that the original number had been tampered with and substituted by the present one. The appellant's contention is strengthened by the fact that the purchase voucher also contained the same number, which was found on the chassis and was recorded in the registration book. The authorities below have based their finding merely on presumptions which are quite rebutable and the appellants have successfully rebutted and explained the same. The appellants also made a request for examination of the vehicle by Messrs Shah Nawaz Motors Limited but the same was turned down for the reasons that the matter was pending since long which is contrary to record and otherwise not tenable."
3. The learned Tribunal accepted a voucher reflecting the chassis number of the vehicle in hand said to have been issued by Central Military Stores Depot, Rawalpindi showing a private person to be the auction-purchaser of the said vehicle through the said voucher.
4. The view of the Forensic Science Laboratory was that a spurious number had been punched on the chassis. It is the case of the department that the number as given in the purchase voucher issued by the Central Military Stores Depot was imprinted on the chassis and, the voucher was used to establish that the vehicle under reference was in fact purchased through auction as such. The words of the learned Tribunal saying "mere detection that a number had been punched on the chassis cannot give rise to the presumption that the original number had been tampered with and substituted by the present one" do not appear to be cogent. If the numbers given on the chassis of the vehicle have any overwriting on the same a presumption does arise with respect to tampering and calls for an inquiry whether a tampering had taken place or not which of course requires proof for rebutting the presumption.
5. The question is whether the said voucher provided the proof or a suspicion continued after it was discovered that the original number borne on the chassis had been further punched.
6. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the Federation the learned Tribunal did not fully apply its mind to the circumstances of the case.
7. When this matter came up for hearing we on 18-1-2006 passed the following order:--
"The precise question is, were the respondents cheating the department by giving a false model number and source of purchase of the said vehicle to the Revenue for evading custom duty? Let the Inspector Intelligence present along with the learned counsel for the appellant approach Messrs Shah Nawaz Motors Limited dealers in the said product and take one of their experts who may go to Multan and inspect the vehicle under reference and later assist this Court in deciding the case. To come up on 26-1-2006."
8. We did this to satisfy ourselves on the question of fraud as was alleged. A report has been received from Messrs Shah Nawaz Motors Limites deals in Mercedes Benz for Pakistan whose representative also appeared in Court to further elucidate the factual position. The report says:
"From the evidence provided to us in shape of chassis plate photograph, the chassis number is shown as 6-digit (080545). The Mercedes Benz truck prime mover has 14-digit chassis number. Therefore, it appears from photograph that the chassis number has been tampered. From the provided chassis number of 6-digit it is not possible to access the model of truck and year of manufacturing."
9. In this view of the matter we feel that the learned Tribunal fell into an error by relying on the voucher which was produced before the same reflecting purchase from Central Military Stores Depot, Rawalpindi. We are also of the view that the learned Tribunal further fell into an error while brushing aside the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and accepting the evidence of voucher produced before it without due verification and thus give a judgment which does not satisfy the ends, of justice. We answer the two law questions 6(i) and 6(ii) raised before us in positive and in favour of the department and remit the case to the learned Tribunal for re-consideration of the matter in the light of the report aforementioned and the record before it after setting aside its judgment, dated 15-4-2003. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 1-2-2006 for de novo hearing. No order as to costs.
S.A.K./C-7/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Answer in affirmative.