AMAN ULLAH VS CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 4 others
2007 P T D 983
[Lahore High Court]
Before Mian Hamid Farooq and Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, JJ
AMAN ULLAH
Versus
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 4 others
Customs Appeal No.13 of 2004, decided on 12/12/2006.
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss.156(89) & 196---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Seizure and confiscation of vehicle---Order of Tribunal directing release of vehicle on payment of leviable duties and taxes---Owner of vehicle (appellant) claimed its unconditional release for being an innocent and bona fide purchaser thereof for consideration---Validity-.Appellant had already got maximum relief---Principle of bona fide purchaser would not apply to goods confiscated under the provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Bona fide purchaser for consideration would not be absolved from liability to pay customs duty, taxes and fines etc.---High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.
Collector of Customs, Lahore v. Azeem Ahmad 2003 PTD 960; Collector of Customs, Multan v. Muhammad Tasleem 2002 MLD 296 and Abdur Rauf Khan v. Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs 1980 SCMR 114 rel.
(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----S.156---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41---Goods confiscated under Customs Act, 1969---Principle of bona fide purchaser would not attract to such cases---Bona fide purchaser for consideration would not be absolved from liability to pay customs duty, taxes and fines etc.
Collector of Customs, Lahore v. Azeem Ahmad 2003 PTD 960; Collector of Customs, Multan v. Muhammad Tasleem 2002 MLD 296 and Abdur Rauf Khan v. Collector, Central Excise and Land customs 1980 SCMR 114 rel.
Malik Muhammad Shabbir Langrial for Appellant.
Ch. Saghir Ahmad for Respondent No.1.
ORDER
The appellant, through the present appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, has called in question judgment dated 24-7-2004, statedly conveyed to him on 8-10-2004, whereby the learned Appellate Tribunal ordered for release of the vehicle of the appellant on payment of leviable duties and taxes.
2. Precisely stated, the facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that the appellant, statedly purchased Toyota Corrola Car, bearing Registration No.A0416, Shikarpur, Chassis No. CE100-3015300 Engine No.2124882 which was intercepted by staff of Customs Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Central Excise), when it was driven by one Ghulam Nazik son of Pir Bukhsh who in his statement disclosed that the vehicle in question belonged to the appellant. The seizing agency, after observing certain formalities, prepared the seizer report and forwarded it to the adjudicating authority, which issued show-cause notice to the appellant, the claimant of the vehicle. The learned Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), after hearing the parties, kept intact order of confiscation of vehicle already passed by Additional Collector, Custom House, Multan, through order in Original No.198/1999 dated 8-9-1999, vide its order in Original No.856/2001 dated 31-5-2001. Seemingly aggrieved from the said order in original, the appellant filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which, after hearing the parties, directed that "In view of circumstances of the case, we order release of the vehicle to the present appellant/owner/claimant on payment of leviable duties and taxes and fulfilment of same terms and conditions against which this vehicle was allowed release vide order in Appeal No.69/2000 dated 15-3-2000 by the learned Collector Customs, Central Excise & Sales Tax (Appeals), Lahore", vide impugned judgment dated 24-7-2004, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and also held to be an innocent buyer by both the Courts below and he did not commit any violation of the provisions of customs law, therefore, both the orders may be set aside and the vehicle in question be released to the appellant claimant unconditionally. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the appellant may be the innocent buyer, but he is not entitled for unconditional release of the vehicle and that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. He has relied upon Collector of Customs, Lahore v. Azeem Ahmad 2003 PTD 960 and Collector of Customs, Multan v. Muhammad Tasleem 2002 MLD 296.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The case of the appellant is that he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration, as he purchased the vehicle from open market, and thus he could not be deprived of the vehicle on the ground that it was a smuggled car. We feel that the learned Tribunal, after observing that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser, an innocent buyer and was cheated by Muhammad Iqbal, allowed release of vehicle to the appellant on payment of leviable duties and taxes etc. To our mind, that was the maximum relief, which could have been granted to the appellant under the circumstances, otherwise, the principle of bona fide purchaser is not applicable to the goods confiscated under the provisions of Customs Act. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case reported as Collector of Customs, Multan v. Muhammad Tasleem 2002 MLD 296 while relying upon the case of Abdur Rauf Khan v. Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs 1980 SCMR 114, has held that principle of bona fide purchaser in good faith and without notice is not applicable to the goods confiscated under the provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and it was the bounden duty of the person found in possession of a smuggled item to show not only a licence for its import but also the payment of duty and tax leviable thereupon. The Division Bench of this Court in another case reported as Collector of Customs, Lahore v. Azeem Ahmad 2003 PTD 960, while dilating upon the status of bona fide purchaser of a smuggled vehicle, has held as under:---
"The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the owners of these vehicles are bona fide purchasers and entitled to protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, is not tenable for two reasons. Firstly, there is nothing on record to indicate that they had purchased it from someone and secondly even if they are purchasers from the first owners, it would not absolve the Vehicles from liability of the Taxes, Customs Duties and Fine under the law. The goods of the respondents fall within the mischief of section 156 clause (89) of the Customs Act, 1969. The afore-referred argument loses sight of the mandatory provisions of section 187 of the Customs Act which puts the onus of proof of a bona fide transaction entirely on a person from whose possession a smuggled goods has been recovered."
5. It flows from the joint reading of the aforesaid two judgments that the principle of bona fide purchaser is not attracted in the cases falling under Customs Act. Even if it be taken that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for consideration, that would not absolve him from the liability to pay customs duty, taxes and fine etc. The solitary argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted in view of the principles of law laid down in the cases of Collector of Customs Multan and Collector of Customs Lahore (ibid) and we are not persuaded to take a contrary view.
6. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same does not call for any interference by this Court, as we feel that the .appellant has already got the maximum relief, which could be granted to him under the present set of circumstances and in view of the law noted above. We are not persuaded to unsettled the impugned judgment, which is hereby maintained.
7. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits, hence stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
S.A.K./A-24/LAppeal dismissed.