COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI VS GHULAM MUHAMMAD, 2008 PTD-KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH 525 (2007)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss.168 & 211---Seizure of vehicle on charge of being smuggled---Registration of vehicle in record of Motor Vehicle Registration Department 14 years prior to its seizure---Registration Book of vehicle produced by applicant not found to be fake by Registration Department---Non-production of bill-of-entry or import documents of vehicle by applicant---Effect---Calling upon owner of vehicle to produce bill-of entry or other legal import documents at this stage would be nothing---Individual importer having imported goods for private or personal use would not fall within purview of S.211 of Customs Act, 1969---Registration Book produced by applicant was sufficient proof of his ownership---Burden to prove otherwise was on Customs Authorities, which they had failed to discharge---Impugned order-in-original was set aside in circumstances.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant.

Rafi Kumboh for Respondent.

ORDER

Applicant has challenged the judgment passed by Member Judicial-II, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench II. Karachi in Customs Appeal No.459 of 2006.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the vehicle in question was not imported lawfully and within the definition of goods brought into the country for bona fide private or personal purposes and as such section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969 is not attracted in the instant case and the impugned judgment passed by learned Member is liable to be set aside.

After going through the impugned judgment we find that proper reasoning has been given, which is reproduced as under:--

"Having considered the arguments raised in this case. The vehicle is 1990 Model and shown to have been registered in the name of the appellant Mr. Ghulam Muhammad on 5-1-1998 purchased from one Urs s/o Haji Jhanda Jamali these documents were not found to be fake by the Motor Vehicle Registration Department that under provisions of section 211 of the Customs Act,1969. The record had to be maintained for not more than five years..."

Learned Member has come to the above conclusion after placing reliance on the findings in several Customs Appeals including Customs Appeal No. Q-197 of 2003 which is reproduced as under:--

"But while observing so, Adjudicating Officer has failed to ignore that the registration of vehicle is sufficient proof of the fact that the vehicle is legally imported in the country because as soon as the registration papers are presented before MRA it is their responsibility to check the documents and examine them thoroughly with reference to their genuineness before registration. It also cannot be overlooked that vehicle in question is of 1989 Model whereas the action on charge of smuggling has been taken on 20-11-2002 after lapse of about 14 years, calling upon the party to produce the bill of entry or any other legal import documents is nothing but a practical joke with the party as by virtue of section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969 importer or exporter is liable to maintain importation related record and documents only for a period of 5 years, an individual importer who imports goods for private or personal use is excluded from the purview of that section thus once the appellant produced the registration documents, the burden of proof shifted on the respondent and they have failed to discharge that.

Upshot of the above discussion shows that the negligence on the part of MRA Jafarabad has been put on the shoulders of appellant which is an immense misuse of law and this malpractice committed by the Department unnecessarily put the citizens in trouble: By placing Registration Book and NOC issued by Excise and Taxation Quetta -- Pishin District appellant has produced sufficient documents to prove himself as legal owner of the same with these observations, the Order-in-Original is set aside and the appeal is allowed."

The contention of applicant was taken care by the Tribunal who has rightly allowed the appeal vide impugned judgment. The factual position, narrated in the impugned judgment in respect of the registration of the vehicle in question in the name of the respondent, which were not found to be fake by the Motor Vehicle Registration Department, has not been controverted by the learned counsel. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity calling for interference in the impugned judgment, hence this Special Customs Reference Application is dismissed.

Above are the reasons of our short order dated 29-11-2007.

S.A.K./C-21/KApplication dismissed.