ISLAM TRADING COMPANY through Proprietor VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, SAMBRIAL, SIALKOT, 2008 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1882 (2008)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 25 & 30---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Intra-Court Appeal-Determination of customs value of goods---Appellant/assessee, contended that he was justified in assuming that as per the amount intimated vide letter, the Department had reduced the amount of payable duty and that on the basis of said assumption, appellant did not avail the right. of appeal and impugned demand was without lawful authority---Authorities, on the other hand contended that no ground existed for making the said assumption as even the letter in question had duly narrated the actual amount assessed and claimed by the Department---Appellant was fully aware of the contents of the assessment order and it proceeded to challenge the same before the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Validity---Notice had clearly narrated the amounts that were found to be due as differential duty against both consignments---Record admittedly showed that the assessment was not challenged in any other manner and no competent Authority or Court reduced the same---Appellant, in circumstances, could not say that .it was misled in the matter of filing of appeal---Appeal was dismissed.

Shehzada Mazhar for Appellant.

Afzaal Ahmed Hashmi for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Date of hearing: 5th August, 2008.

JUDGMENT

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This I.C.A. proceeds against judgment, dated 9-7-2008 of a learned Single Judge, in Chamber of this Court, whereby Writ Petition No.8388 of 2008 filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is justified in assuming that as per the amount intimated vide letter, dated 4-12-2003 (Annex-B to writ petition), the Department has reduced the amount of payable duty. Further contention is that on the basis of the said assumption the appellant did not avail the right of appeal and as such the impugned demand was without lawful authority: Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that there is no ground for making the said assumption as even the letter, dated 4-12-2003 duly narrated the actual amount assessed and claimed by the Department.

3. We have gone 'through the writ petition records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Feeling aggrieved in the matter of assessment of two consignments detailed in para. 2 of the writ petition, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.17773 of 1995 in this Court. The consignments were released under the interim orders passed by this Court upon furnishing Bank guarantees in the amount of differential. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to re-assess the consignments under sections 25 and 30 of the Customs Act, 1969. The assessment was made by an Assistant Collector vide order, dated 22-11-2000 (Annex-A to writ petition). According to the said assessment, the differential duty payable was worked out for the two consignments at Rs.3,81,373 and Rs.3,96,991 respectively. Learned counsel states that this order was challenged before the learned Federal Tax Ombudsman who refused to interfere and advised the appellant to get the matter adjudicated elsewhere. On 4-12-2003 an Assistant Collector (Recovery) issued a notice narrating the said facts and calling upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5,87,767. This amount was admittedly recovered.

4. On 26-6-2004 a Deputy Collector (Recovery) claimed the balance amount of Rs.1,90,597 according to the said assessment order. A reminder was issued on 24-5-2005. Admittedly, the amount was not paid or deposited. Vide order, dated 23-5-2008 (Annex-E to writ petition) provisions of section 202(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, were invoked. The needful was not done and ultimately a final notice under the said provision of law invoking coercive measures was issued. Writ Petition No.8388 of 2008 was filed to question this order which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

5. We do not find any force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. He was fully aware of the contents of the assessment order and proceeded to challenge the same before the learned Federal Tax Ombudsman. The notice, dated 4-12-2003 clearly narrated the amounts that were found to be due as differential duty against both the consignments. The figure Rs.5,87,767 by all means is an arithmetical error while adding up the said two amounts. It is an admitted position on record that the assessment was not challenged in any other manner and no Competent Authority or Court reduced the same. In view of the history of the contest qua the said assessment, it hardly lies in the mouth of the appellant to state that it was misled in the matter of filing of the appeal. The I.C.A. accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.

H.B.T./I-35/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.