INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, 2011 PTD-KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH 2861 (2010)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

---Ss. 25-A, 25-D & 196---Determination of customs value---Powers of Member (Technical) to decide question of law---Reference application--Prima facie, a matter of law was adjudicated upon by the Member (Technical) sitting single---Validity---Member (Technical) sitting singly, had no jurisdiction to decide upon question of law and could assume such jurisdiction---Such question though had not been proposed, but being a jurisdictional question, High Court could frame a fresh .question and answer the same---High Court framed question afresh and answered the same in negative---Consequently impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to place before an appropriate Bench and to decide the appeal preferably within a period of 60 days after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard.

Muzammil Ahmed v. Collector of Customs 2009 PTD 266 rel.

Junaid Ghaffar for Applicant.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.

ORDER

By this Custom Reference Application filed against the order of the Tribunal, dated 20-2-2008 in Custom Appeal No.207 of 2003, three questions have been proposed for the opinion of this Court.

At the very outset, the learned counsel for appellant Mr. Junaid Ghaffar submitted that although this question has not been raised but after filing of the above Reference Application which according to him was filed by some other counsel, this Court in its Judgment in case of Muzammil Ahmed v. collector of Customs, reported in 2009 PTD page 266, has held that the Member (Technical) sitting singly does not have jurisdiction to decide upon question of law. He pointed out that in this case the Member has decided that the jurisdiction in case of valuation does not lie with the Tribunal but with the Directorate General Valuation under section 25-D of the customs Act and the question of jurisdiction, according to him, is a question of law which could not have been decided by the Member (Technical) sitting singly. This position could not be controverted by Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent.

We have examined the case and are of the considered view that prima facie a matter of law was adjudicated upon by the Member (Technical) and in view of the above Judgment she could not have assumed such jurisdiction. Although as conceded by the learned counsel, such question has not been proposed but being a jurisdictional question this Court can frame a fresh question and answer it. We would, therefore, frame a fresh question to read as under:--

"Whether the Member (Technical) sitting singly had power to adjudicate on matters relating to law ?"

and following the Judgment in the case of Muzammil Ahmed referred above, we would answer it in Negative. In consequence of the above answer, we would set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Tribunal to place before an appropriate Bench and to decide the Appeal preferably within a period of 60 days, after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard.

H.B.T./I-31/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.