NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, 2015 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 637 (2014)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss.2(s), 32(1), 32(2), 32(A), 79, 121, 127, 128, 129, 192 & 209---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 470 to 484 & 600(vi)---Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965---Smuggling---Misappropriation of goods---Different goods cleared through different goods declarations were checked, loaded on the National Logistic Cell---Containers were sealed in presence of Customs authorities, clearing agents, drivers, co-drivers, conductors and other concerned---Consignments were handed over to National Logistic Cell who were legally bound to ensure safe and secure transportation unto the destination because it was the sole responsibility of the National Carrier to safely transit the goods across Pakistan through designated routes i.e. either via Spin-Boldak (Chaman) or the Torkham borders---Verification from data provided by the Afghanistan Government revealed that all the consignments did not cross over into Afghanistan giving prima facie evidence to the fact that goods were pilfered, misappropriated/smuggled enroute and disposed of in Pakistan by the National Logistic Cell in league with importers and border clearing agents---Declarations statements and documents submitted to customs at the port of clearance and thereafter for the transit consignment were incorrect and false, designed to serve the mere purpose of conceiving and committing the fraudulent activity of smuggling and revenue theft in the garb of transit cargo---Revenue alleged that National Logistic Cell the authorized carrier, had actively facilitated smuggling and fraud in violation of their undertaking for safe transportation of the goods---Carrier, importers and agents had jointly and severally pilfered/smuggled and disposed of the goods in Pakistan in gross violation of the provisions of law and defrauding the Government exchequer of the legitimate duties and taxes---Appellant, National Logistic Cell, contended that National Logistic Cell was not legally, morally or contractually bound to transit goods from Chaman to Afghanistan---No evidence of any violation of Rules had been laid against the appellant---National Logistic Cell could not be held liable on mere presumption that since the goods did not reach Afghanistan, the container was not transported by the National Logistic Cell and pilfered enroute; and order passed was nullity in the eyes of law as the customs clearing security unit was responsible for security from the port of entry to port of exist---Goods were loaded in the National Logistic Cell containers at Karachi port in presence of Customs Officers, clearing agents, drivers, co-drivers, conductors and other concerned, sealed and were handed over to the National Logistic Cell---No documentary evidence or other evidence was available on the files that the goods reached the destination---Verification made from the data provided by Afghanistan Government also confirmed that consignments did not cross over into Afghanistan---National Logistic Cell actively facilitated the misappropriation, pilferage and smuggling of transit goods for their own gain---No cross border certificate as required under the law were produced by the National Logistic Cell at any stage of proceedings---Computerized data maintained for sealing, de-sealing of Afghan Transit Trade containers showed that the consignments were not de-sealed at its destination---Importer was not a Pakistani citizen but he had been granted national treatment under the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement of 1965, he should not be discriminated vis- -vis importers of Pakistani citizenship---This privilege was subject to observance of economic and legal sovereignty of Pakistan within its borders---Importing goods in garb of Transit Trade and then disposing them of within Pakistan not only violated the letters of the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement of 1965, but was also an assault on Pakistani's economy---Crime was committed within Pakistan's territory; all the committers, abettors and beneficiaries of the crime were accountable here---Appeals were without merit and no interference was called for by the Appellate Tribunal---National Logistic Cell and border agents were individually and collectively responsible for making payment determined by adjudicating in all the cases.

PLD 2008 SC 591 rel.

(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S.194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Limitation---Appeals were barred by limitation---Condonation of delay---Matter being highly sensitive and of national importance, delay in filing appeals was condoned by the Appellate Tribunal.

PLD 2008 SC 591 rel.

(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 2(s)---"Smuggling"---Burden of proof---Misappropriation, pilferage and smuggling of transit goods---National Logistic Cell/ appellant contended that customs authorities were supposed to prove the place where the goods were smuggled, misappropriated or pilfered---Validity---Objection had no footing, because the National Logistic Cell had verbally as well as through documents had admitted a number of times, that the goods were loaded on the containers, the containers were sealed and handed over to the National Logistic Cell for further transportation to the destination---Such consignments did not reach the destination---Onus to prove that the National Carrier delivered the goods at the destination shifted on the National Logistic Cell because definitely the goods were misappropriated but the containers, trucks, the drivers, co-drivers, conductors and their other associates were in Pakistan; they were neither smuggled nor kidnapped--None of the said persons was ever produced by the National Logistic Cell before the Tribunal or forums below.

(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S.2(s)---Smuggling---Misappropriation of goods---National Logistic Cell/appellant contended that goods were misappropriated from Pakistan Railways during transit but no penal action was taken against Pakistan Railways; and National Logistic Cell be given the same treatment---Such statement of National Logistic Cell amounted to admission.

Shahnawaz for Appellants.

Shahid Ali Abbasi, D.C., Imtiaz Hussain A.O., Shakeel Ahmed A.O., Khan Muhammad Sarohi, Dil Khurram Shaheen for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th August, 2014.

JUDGMENT

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.--These appeals have been directed against the order-in-appeal dated 20-2-2012, passed by the Additional Collector, Model Customs Collectorate of Appraisement, Karachi. Since all the appeals have arisen out of the same Show-Case Notice, they are disposed of by this single consolidated judgment.

2.Brief facts of the case are that appellant is bonded carriers, the National Logistic Cell (NLC). At the port, after loading the goods, the containers are checked by the Customs authorities who also seal the containers and goods are transported to their destination.

3.In the instant cases, the consignments were cleared from Karachi port/Port Muhammad Bin Qasim as Afghanistan destined cargo for transportation of consignments to the notified exit points i.e. through Chaman or Torkham. These were a number of consignments, the details of each consignment has been provided in each separate appeal. All the consignments having different goods cleared through different GDs were checked, loaded on the NLC containers, the containers were sealed in present of Customs authorities, clearing agents, drivers, co-drivers, conductors and other concerned. Thereafter, the consignments were handed over to the National Carrier/National Logistic Cell who were legally bound to ensure safe and secure transportation upto the destination because it was the sole responsibility of the National Carrier to safely transit the goods across Pakistan through designated routes i.e. either via Spin-Boldak (Chaman) or the Torkham borders.

4.That verification from the information/data provided by the Afghanistan Government revealed that all the consignments, the details of which have been provided in the above appeals did not cross over into Afghanistan giving prima facie evidence to the fact that the goods were pilfered, misappropriated/ smuggled enroute and disposed of in Pakistan by the appellant in league with importers and the border clearing agents. The declarations, statements and documents submitted to customs at the port of clearance and thereafter for the transit consignment were incorrect and false, designed to serve the mere purpose of conceiving and committing the fraudulent activity of smuggling and revenue theft in the garb of transit cargo. It was also alleged that the appellant authorized carrier has actively facilitated this smuggling and fraud in violation of their undertaking for safe transportation of the said goods. The carrier, importers and agents had jointly and severally pilfered/smuggled and disposed of the said goods in Pakistan in gross violation of the relevant provisions of law and defrauding the Government exchequer of the legitimate duties and taxes. The adjudicating officer held vide the impugned order that the charge against the appellants had been established. The operative part of the Order-in-Original is reproduced as under:--

"I have gone through the case record and given due consideration to the submissions made by Messrs National Logistic Cell (NLC), Karachi. The respondents have been alleged for conceiving and committing the fraudulent activity of smuggling and evasion by disposing of the subject impugned goods in Pakistan which were imported and cleared in the garb of Afghan Transit Cargo. It has also been alleged that since the goods destined for Afghanistan did not reach the designated border point of Chaman (as per Afghan Wakil-e-Tijjar record) and cross over into Afghanistan, the declarations, documents, statements etc. presented at various stages were contrived to cover up the fraud, evasion and smuggling. Thus the core issue involved is that whether the instant impugned goods imported for onward transit to Afghanistan had actually crossed over the Afghanistan border and reached at its final destination in Afghanistan or otherwise. In order to appreciate the issue in its legal perspective, primary legal instruments available are Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 signed between Pakistan and Afghan Government on 2nd March, 1965 and Public Notice No.05/ 2003 dated 18-11-2003 issued by MCC Port Qasim read with Public Notice No.16/ 2000(A) dated 30-9-2000. Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 1(5) of the Annexure on the Customs another procedures to the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 specifies that the duplicate and triplicate copies Afghan Transit Trade Invoice (ATTI) will be dispatched to the respective Afghan Customs at Spin Boldak or Torkham. On receipt of the ATTI from the Pakistan Customs, the Afghan Customs at Spin Boldak or Torkhanm as the case may be, will retain the duplicate and return the triplicate copy of ATTI to the respective Custom House of dispatch in Pakistan with appropriate endorsement certifying the arrival of goods. This triplicate copy of the ATTI, with appropriate endorsements by the respective Afghan Customs, is termed as the Cross Border Certificate. Para (7) of the Public Notice No.05/ 2003 (PQ) dated 6-11-2003 also inter alia, specifies that the respective custom station at the border will send the cross border certificate confirming that the goods have crossed over to Afghanistan, within 45 days of the dispatch of the ATTI from Karachi. The appellants failed to provide legal proof of actual transit of the subject consignment to Afghanistan. No cross border certificate as required under Public Notice No.05/2003 (PQ), Public Notice No.16/ 2000 (A) read with the provisions of section 129 of the Customs Act, 1969 and Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 was provided. Moreover, the relevant computerized data maintained for sealing/de-sealing of Afghan transit trade containers under Customs General Order No.4/ 2007 shows that the instant consignment was not de-sealed at its destination i.e. Chaman. Messrs NLC, has also failed to even respond to the show-cause notice or to justify the non transit of the subject consignment. While lifting the cargo Messrs NLC had given undertaking of assuming full responsibility of delivering the goods to customs at Chaman, and of indemnifying customs in case of any loss or theft. The counsel for Messrs NLC submitted unsigned reply wherein it has been stated that "the Customs Authority has confirmed delivery of the consignment and after proper satisfaction issued the Afghan Transit Trade Invoice (ATTI) and Cross Border Certificate (CBC) which confirms that M/s. National Logistic Cell has discharged its duties to deliver the consignment at notified destination and that consignment was further transported to Afghanistan by the client after fulfilling all necessary documentation". However the above stance of M/s. NLC has not been substantiated. The appellant could not produce border custom station or cross border certificate or any other legally valid document. Having undertaken the obligation of transportation of transit cargo from Port Qasim to customs station at Chaman, with all attendant risks and rewards of this commercial undertaking, NLC cannot wash its hands off its core responsibility of ensuring that the consignment reaches its destination. There was no customs escort and no intrusive en-route surveillance to track the cargo's movement. To the extent of transportation of goods to Chaman, the system rested mainly on the faith that Messrs NLC being a premier transport agency of the country would discharge its avowed obligations. The facts and circumstances of the case prove that Messrs NLC has failed to do so. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that Messrs NLC has failed to perform their obligations. The importer is not a Pakistani citizen. However, under the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement of 1965, he has been granted National Treatment i.e. he shall not be discriminated vis-a-vis importers of Pakistani citizenship. This privilege is, however, subject to observance of economic and legal sovereignty of Pakistan within its borders. Importing goods in the garb of Transit Trade and then disposing them of within Pakistan not only violates the letter of the ATTA of 1965, but is also an assault on Pakistani's economy. The crime was committed within Pakistan's territory and hence all the committers, abettors and beneficiaries of the crime are accountable here. No documentary evidence of clearance from Afghan Customs has been provided as a proof of the fact that the goods were not disposed of in Pakistan. I find nothing prohibitory in the ATTA of 1965 which provides any shelter to the Afghan importer for the offence committed by him inside Pakistan. Hence being the main beneficiary, the importer is held to have violated the ATTA of 1965 and the relevant rules/regulations etc. promulgated for the purposes of smooth operation of the Transit Trade. For the forgoing reasons and in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that the impugned goods imported for transit to Afghanistan had not actually crossed over the border and had been pilfered, smuggled and consumed within territorial limits of Pakistan. Therefore, the charges of pilferage, smuggling and disposal of the impugned goods in Pakistan and thus defrauding the Government of Pakistan of its legitimate revenue are established beyond shadow of doubt against the above named respondents under sections 2(s), 32(1), 32(2), 32(A), 79, 121, 127, 128, 129, 192 and 209 of the Customs Act, 1969. All the evaded taxes and duties are held recoverable from the importers, their border agents Messrs NLC and the importer beside personal penalty under aforesaid provisions of law in respect of the subject impugned consignments. Messrs NLC, (authorized carrier), Afghanistan the above respondents are therefore, directed to make payment of aforesaid recoverable amount of duty and taxes and penalty within 30 days of the issuance of this order failing which they shall render themselves liable to action under Section 202 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Chapter XI (Recovery Rules) of the Customs Rules, 2001 notified vide S.R.O. 450(I)/2001 dated 18-6-2001 as amended from time to time.

5.Feeling dis-satisfied with the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeals before the Collector of Customs, Karachi, which were also dismissed on 20-2-2012; hence these appeals.

6.Learned counsel for the appellants has advanced lengthy arguments and stated that the appellant (National logistic Cell), hereinafter referred to as NLC, is an organization working under strict control of Pak Army and performing various functions of national importance from time to time. It has never been involved as an organization in any corruption or malpractice. Transportation of Transit goods for Afghanistan from Karachi to Chaman/Amangarh the declared Border Stations) in the light of Rules 470 to 484 and Rule 600 (vi) of Customs Rules, 2001, is a sacred duty which the NLC has performed strictly in accordance with Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Rules. NLC was not legally, morally or contractually bound to transit goods from Chaman to Afghanistan. No evidence of any violation of Rules has been laid against NLC, therefore the appellant can not be held liable on mere presumption that since the goods did not reach in side Afghanistan, the container was not transported by the appellant and pilfered enroute. The order passed is therefore a nullity in the eyes of Law. The customs clearing security unit (CCSU) is responsible for security from the port of entry to port of exit under Rule 477 of the Customs Rules, 2001. Under Rules 479-480 thereof the Collectorate of Customs concerned is responsible to maintain record of exit electronically into PaCCS. In Rule 600(xiv) ibid, Custom transit means procedure through which goods are transported under Customs control from one custom office of one contracting party to custom office of another contracting party under suspension of payment of taxes and duties. Therefore, holding the NLC guilty of smuggling and other allied charges is illegal, unjust. The impugned order is thus improper and void in law. The Afghan goods are being transported from one custom office of departure i.e. Karachi to another enroute till office of destination; therefore Customs authorities are directly responsible for the safety and security of the goods and not the applicant transporter/carrier (NLC). The respondent who is one of the member of customs service is an interested party therefore, the respondent was not eligible/qualified in the matter of his interest as judge hence corum non judice, the trial is therefore null and void. Pakistan Customs Container Security System "PCCSS" that encompasses sealing as well as de-sealing of transit cargo and there can not be any smuggling, theft, or cheating without connivance of Customs officials. The role of NLC is merely a Transport Operator (TO) under strict control of customs; therefore, its trial as an organization with importer and clearing agent is perverse to the natural law. Under Rule 629 of Customs Rules, 2001, the transit goods enroute are inspected by customs authority and NLC has/had no control over the movement of the transport/containers. Under Rule 630 the carrier has to follow the specified route for movement of transit cargo duly checked by the customs authorities. As per Rule 483 of Customs Rules, 2001, where after lapse of 144 hours of its intimation of departure under rule 478, the goods delivered or consignment so dispatched there under is reportedly not received by the Collectorate exercising jurisdiction over the port of exit, PACCS shall proceed to take action against the carrier which shall, until the matter is resolved. However in this case the proceeding started after almost 2 years, which is badly hit by laches. The impugned order is without following the spirit of mandatory provisions of law/established departmental practice. Imposing penalty without providing any lawful reason, is discriminatory; hence in violation of law on the part of respondent and the same is also violative of the mandatory provisions of law/ruling of Superior Courts given in identical cases. Due to the said reason, the impugned order cannot be treated a proper order as required under the law. The counsel prayed that appeals be accepted, both the impugned orders be set aside and the Show-Cause Notices be also vacated.

7.Conversely, the D/R has opposed these appeals and has contended that the grounds taken by the appellant side were already agitated before the adjudicating officer as well as before the Collector (Appeals), Karachi, who dilated upon the matter in detail and passed well reasoned orders. All the photocopies of TDR produced by the appellants are forged and fabricated documents. Therefore, appeals be dismissed.

8.Arguments heard from both the parties, record perused.

9.Before proceedings with these matters, it is to point out that some of appeals were barred by limitation. The details are as under:--

(1)Appeal No. 285/2012 - 10 days

(2)Appeals Nos. 278/2012 to 288/2012-10 days

(3)Appeals Nos. 527/2012 to 549/2012-88 days and

(4)Appeals Nos. 148/2012 to 196/2012-5 days.

Similarly, most of the appeals filed by clearing agents were also barred by limitation, but since the matter was highly sensitive and of national importance, the delay in filing appeals is condoned in the light of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as PLD 2008 SC 591.

10.At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has admitted these facts that the containers were loaded with various goods from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, the consignments were Afghanistan destine transit cargo. A number of clearing agents filed declarations on behalf of importers. After loading goods on the NLC containers, the containers were sealed in presence of Customs staff, clearing agents, drivers, co-drivers, conductors and other concerneds. Thereafter, the consignments were handed over to the appellant.

11.After receiving the custody, the appellant was legally bound to ensure the safe and secure transportation upto the destination because it was the sole responsibility of the National Carrier to safely transit the goods across Pakistan through designated route i.e. either via Spin-Boldak (Chaman) or the Torkhanm border.

12.The stance of appellant's side that they delivered the consignments safely at the destination has no reality because despite repeated directions, the appellant could not produce even an iota of evidence in support of their version that they had delivered the consignments at destination. The appellant neither could produce the cross border certificate nor any document that they had delivered the consignments at the destination. Thus the core issue involved is that whether the instant impugned goods imported for onward transit to Afghanistan had actually crossed over into the Afghanistan border and reached at its final destination in Afghanistan or otherwise. In order to appreciate the issue in its legal perspective, primary legal instruments available are Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 signed between Pakistan and Afghan Government on 2nd March, 1965 and Public Notice No.05/2003 dated 18-11-2003 issued by MCC Port Qasim read with Public Notice No.16/2000(A) dated 30-9-2000. Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 1(5) of the Annexure on the Customs another procedures to the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 specifies that the duplicate and triplicate copies of Afghan Transit Trade Invoice (ATTI) will be dispatched to the respective Afghan Customs at Spin Boldak or Torkham. On receipt of the ATTI from the Pakistan Customs, the Afghan Customs at Spin Boldak or Torkhanm as the case may be, will retain the duplicate and return the triplicate copy of ATTI to the respective Custom House of dispatch in Pakistan with appropriate endorsement certifying the arrival of goods. This triplicate copy of the ATTI, with appropriate endorsements by the respective Afghan Customs, is termed as the Cross Border Certificate. Para (7) of the Public Notice No.05/2003 (PQ) dated 6-11-2003 also inter alia, specifies that the respective custom station at the border will send the cross border certificate confirming that the goods have crossed over to Afghanistan, within 45 days of the dispatch of the ATTI from Karachi. The appellants failed to provide legal proof of actual transit of the subject consignment to Afghanistan. No cross border certificate as required under Public Notice No.05/2003 (PQ), Public Notice No.16/2000 (A) read with the provisions of section 129 of the Customs Act, 1969 and Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 was provided. Moreover, the relevant computerized data maintained for sealing/de-sealing of Afghan transit trade containers under Customs General Order No.4/2007 shows that the instant consignment was not de-sealed at its destination i.e. Chaman.

13.It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of appeals, on 22-4-2013, the NLC submitted applications in all pending appeals along with photocopies of transit detail report and prayed that since consignments have reached their destination, appellant be exonerated from the charge of misappropriation, pilfering and smuggling of impugned goods.

14.During the final arguments, learned counsel for the appellant once again supplied the same photocopies of TDR before this Larger Bench and repeated the same prayer. This was done, after this Larger Bench had repeatedly demanded of the NLC to produce any documentary evidence to the effect that they had delivered the impugned consignments at the destination. After perusal of photo copies of Transit detail reports, this Larger Bench is of considered view that NLC could not take any benefit from the photocopies of TDR because all the said photocopies were issued by the NLC, which confirmed that the NLC containers were loaded, checked, scaled and were handed over to NLC. Consignments were Afghanistan destined transit cargo. Therefore, the NLC was legally under obligation to ensure safe and secure transportation of the transit goods to the notified point of exit i.e. Chaman or Torkham but the delivery part of TDR is silent in this respect and as already observed, in the column of delivery of goods there are straight or curved lines, with the same hand writing and mostly with the same pen. NLC cannot derive any benefit from the photocopies of TDR. The photocopies of documents bear the monogram of National Logistic Cell, GHQ, Rawalpindi issued on various dates, confirming that the goods were loaded on the container, sealed and delivered into the custody of the NLC but there is no cogent proof as to whom the goods were delivered, the place of delivery and who received the same. The perusal of documents further reveals, as stated above, in the column of delivery of goods, in most of the documents, instead of signature, there is a straight or curved line which could not be treated to be a 'signature'. In most of the columns of delivery of goods, lines have been drawn with one pen by apparently one person. It is pertinent to mention here that the matter was adjudicated before the adjudicating officer on 2-8-2011; the Order-in-Original was passed on 15-11-2011. The first appellant forum/Collector decided the appeals on 20-2-2012. Appeals against the order of Collector were filed before this Tribunal on 20-4-2012 but till 22-4-2013 none of above documents were produced. This Tribunal has no hesitation to declare on the basis of above findings that the transit detail report submitted by the appellant to the extent of delivery of goods column are forged and fabricated.

15.During the arguments the appellant raised very funny objection that it is the Customs Authorities who should prove that at which place the goods were smuggled, misappropriated or pilfered. This question/objection has no footing, because the appellants/ NLC has verbally as well as through documents (TDR) has admitted a number of times, that the goods were loaded on the containers, the containers were sealed and handed over to the NLC/the National Carrier for further transportation to the destination.

16.Admittedly, these consignments did not reach the destination. In this view of the matter 'the onus to prove that the National Carrier delivered the goods at the destination shifts on the NLC because definitely the goods were misappropriated but the containers, trucks, the drivers, co-drivers, conductors and their other associates are in Pakistan; they were neither smuggled nor kidnapped. However, none of them was ever produced by the NLC before this forum or forums below. It is also important to mention here that most of the NLC drivers and other co-drivers, etc, are ex-army persons.

17.It is also very interesting that during the arguments, Lt. Col. (R) Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, the representative of NLC contended, that goods were also misappropriated from Pakistan Railways during transit but no penal action was taken against the Pakistan Railways. The NLC be given the same treatment. The above statement of representative of NLC amounts to admission.

18.The upshot of above discussion is that there is no denial that the goods were loaded in the NLC containers at Karachi port in presence of Customs officers, clearing agents, drivers, co-drivers, conductors and other concerned, sealed and were handed over to the appellant, the National Carrier. There is no documentary evidence or other evidence available on the files that the goods reached the destination. Verification made from the data provided by the Afghanistan Government also confirmed that consignments did not cross over into Afghanistan. It is also upheld by this Larger Bench that the appellant actively facilitated the misappropriation, pilferage and smuggling of transit goods for their personal gain. No cross border certificate as required under the law were produced by the appellant at any stage of proceedings. The relevant computerized data maintained for sealing, de-sealing of Afghan Transit Trade containers shows that the consignments were not de-sealed at its destination. The importer is not a Pakistani citizen. However, under the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement (ATTA) of 1965, he has been granted national treatment i.e. he shall not be discriminated vis-a-vis importers of Pakistani citizenship. This privilege is, however, subject to observance of economic and legal sovereignty of Pakistan within its borders. Importing goods in the garb of Transit Trade and then disposing them of within Pakistan not only violates the letter of the ATTA of 1965, but is also an assault on Pakistan's economy. The crime was committed within Pakistan's territory; hence all the committers, abettors and beneficiaries of the crime are accountable here.

19.In the circumstances, this Tribunal (Lager Bench) is of the considered unanimous view that the appeals are without merit. No interference is called for. The appellant, the importers and border agents are individually and collectively responsible for making payment determined by adjudicating officer in all the cases.

20.Order passed accordingly.

CMA/95/Tax(Trib.)Appeal rejected.