BATTLA ENTERPRISES, KARACHI VS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE, AND INVESTIGATION, (CUSTOMS & EXCISE), KARACHI, 2007 PTD-KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH 2458 (2007)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss.32 & 196---Appeal to High Court---Jurisdiction- of Customs Authorities to seize and re-examine imported goods after payment of customs duty---Once the imported consignment of goods was out of charge after payment of customs duties, the Collectorate of Customs, Intelligence and Investigation, undoubtedly, had no jurisdiction to detain, seize or re-examine such consignment, but in case the Authority had provided information to the concerned officers of the customs about the misdeclaration of goods by the appellant, all proceedings could be initiated and action undertaken by the concerned officials of customs department---Issuance of show-cause notice under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969, clue to gross misdeclaration of nature of consignment, resulting in incorrect valuation, was fully justified and warranted by law.

Shahzad Ahmed Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others 2005 PTD 23 and Mazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and 2 others 2004 PTD 2994 ref.

Amir Malik for Appellant.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.

ORDER

In this reference application under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, preferred by the Assessee/Importer Messrs Battla Enterprises, Karachi, following question of law was framed by this Court vide, order dated 22-12-2005.

"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed error in not considering the fact that after the imported goods were assessed and were out of charge, the Customs intelligence and Investigation Officials had no jurisdiction to reassess the goods and seize the same'?"

In the context of the above question of law we have heard Mr. Amir Malik learned counsel for the appellant. He has vehemently 'contended that the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Officials had no jurisdiction to seize the imported goods of the applicant and re-examine the same, after the customs duty etc. was paid and the goods was out of charge, therefore, the whole subsequent proceedings conducted by the Adjudicating Authority were also unwarranted by law. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the two judgments in the case of Shahzad Ahmed Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others (2005 PTD 23) and Mazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and 2 others (2004 PTD 2994) wherein, precisely it was held that once the imported consignment of goods was out of charge after payment of customs duties the Collectorate of Customs Intelligence and Investigation had no jurisdiction to detain, seize or re-examine such consignment. For this proposition of law there can be no cavil. However, ratio of these cases is of no help to the case of the assessee, as the record shows that respondent No.1 had only provided information about the misdeclaration of consigmnent in question, whereafter goods were detained at Shed No.22, West Wharf, Karachi, and further action/proceedings emanating from the show- cause notice, dated 19-11-2003, which resulted in the passing of Order-in-Original No.61 of 2004, dated 31-3-2004 by Collector of Customs Adjudication-1; Customs House, Karachi and culminated in the form of other order, dated 4-6-2005, passed by Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Bench II, were taken in accordance with law.

Learned counsel when confronted with this factual position and the controversy involved in the matter as to the nature of "press-buttons" imported by the applicant, candidly conceded that the assessee in his declaration of goods submitted before the Customs Authorities has shown the nature of consignment as "press button", though during the subsequent investigation, it was found that the same were "brass press button" falling under a different category of valuation for the purposes of Customs duty.

As discussed above, the respondent No.1 has only provided information to the concerned officer of the customs about the mis declaration of goods by the applicant, whereafter all proceedings were initiated and action was undertaken by the concerned officials of Customs Department. Therefore, issuance of show-cause notice, inter alia under section 32 of Customs Act, 1969, due to gross mis-declaration of the nature of consignment, resulting in incorrect valuation, was fully justified and warranted by law.

In these facts and circumstances the question earlier framed by this Court seems to be redundant. We accordingly dispose of this reference application by maintaining the order of the Tribunal, dated 4-6-2005.

H.B.T./B-20/KOrder accordingly.