ASLAM NIAZI VS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE PaCCS, 2015 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 818 (2014)

2015 P T D (Trib.) 818

[Customs Appellate Tribunal]

Before Ch. Muhammad Tariq, Chairman, Adnan Ahmed, Member Judicial-II and Khalid Mahmood, Member Technical

Messrs ASLAM NIAZI and others

versus

ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE PaCCS and others

Customs Appeals. Nos. K-344 to 350, K-392 to 398, 579 to 609, K-954 to 966, K-1085, 1086, 1088 to 1097, K-1232, K-1242 to 1249, K-1314 to 1327, K-1383 to 1392 of 2011 and K-709 and 710 of 2013, decided on 20/10/2014.

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 2(s), 16, 17, 32-A, 79, 80, 156, 178, 194-A & 194-B---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 423(XXIV)---Notification S.R.O. 450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001---Clearing consignment of imported goods against fake and fictitious Goods Declaration---Penal action---Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, in its contravention report, had reported that importer, cleared consignment against fake and fictitious Goods Declaration without payment of duty and taxes leviable thereon---Validity---Preliminary investigation transpired that neither Goods Declaration was filed by the importer, nor duty and taxes were paid---Accused importer with active connivance with other associates had indulged themselves into the fraudulent and illegal removal of consignment by abusing the Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PaCCS), had defrauded the State Exchequer in violation of relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Importer and other persons were established to be liable for action for the offence and violation of Ss.16, 18, 32, 32A, 79, 80, 156 & 179 of Customs Act, 1969---Amount of duties and taxes had not been ascertained, as the complete description of imported goods were not available---Penal action under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 had been recommended in the contravention report---Findings, conclusion and order in respect of the role played by each accused and his liability had fully been given---Feeling aggrieved from the order-in-original, passed by Adjudicating Authority accused/appellants filed appeal, which was dismissed by Appellate Authority---Appellants, Terminal Operators, not only had violated the Customs Laws and Rules, but were also guilty of gross violation of Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PaCCS)---Objection of appellants side about the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under S.195-B of Customs Act, 1969, was not sustainable---No one had denied the illegal removal of containers from port area on the basis of forged Goods Declarations, but, every one tried to shift the burden of guilt on the other---Appellate Authority, in circumstances, had rightly brought in operation, the provisions of S.195-B of Customs Act, 1969---Objection raised by appellants in relation to the show-cause notice, was not sustainable in the eyes of law, because limitation would not run in cases of fiscal fraud---Present case was of a peculiar nature; and after disclosure of offence, the matter was interrogated by the authorities---Number of departments, including foreign shipment companies were contacted for verification purposes---Conduct of appellants/accused persons, also remained, non-co-operative, causing the delay in issuance of show-cause notice which was not fatal---Guilt of accused persons having fully been proved without any shadow of doubt, no interference was called for by the Appellate Tribunal---Appeals being without merits, were dismissed, in circumstances.

Ali Almani, Sardar Muhammad Ishaque and Fahad Zia for Appellants.

Kausar Hussain, A.O., Rana Gulzar S.I.O., Ghulam Yasin, P.A., Mohsin Imam, Khalil M. Dogar and Zafar Iqbal, Superintendent for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 24th September, 2014.

JUDGMENT

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN.---All the above appeals are identical in nature. The aggrieved persons in these appeals are transporters and terminal operators. Since all the above appellants are allegedly involved in a series of offences in connivance with each other, similar show-cause notices and impugned orders were passed. Therefore, all the above appeals are hereby decided by this single consolidated judgment.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Regional Office, Karachi reported vide its Contravention Report No.Appg-II/34-R/DCl/Misc/2007/1374-R dated 31-3-2010, that Messrs Musafa International, E/161, Kucha Suddan, Sharja Bara Centre, Shah Alam Market, Lahore, fraudulently cleared a consignment of electronic goods imported in 1 x 40 ft container from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim against fake and fictitious Goods Declarations without payment of duty and taxes leviable thereon. In pursuance of the above mentioned information, efforts were made to procure the relevant records pertaining to clearance of containers imported by Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, from the Terminal Operators, Messrs DP World QICT, and Messrs Pakistan Revenue Automation, Ltd. Messrs DP World, QICT, provided the computer generated print of Gate Pass dated 17-3-2007, along with photocopy of Goods Declaration bearing No. C-775 dated 5-3-2007, showing clearance of 1 x 40 ft container No. GLDU-058575-0 said to contain 1836 cartons of electronics goods. The Terminal Operator also provided copy of Delivery Order issued by Messrs Maersk Line in favour of Messrs Musafa International, Lahore wherein Messrs AI-Mehran Traders, Karachi, were authorized to take delivery of aforesaid container. The concerned shipping company Messrs Maersk Line was also approached to procure relevant shipping documents pertaining to aforesaid consignment. The said shipping company provided copy of original Bill of Lading No. 854042993 showing name of consignee as Messrs Musafa International, Lahore and descriptions of goods as 1836 cartons of electronics goods, in one container. The shipping company also provided copy of delivery order in favour of Messrs Al-Mehran Traders, Karachi, on behalf of importers Messrs Musafa International, Lahore.

3.In order to further confirm the veracity of aforesaid information and fraudulent/clandestine removal of containerized cargo arriving from foreign destinations at QICT, Karachi, this Directorate General, vide letter C. No. 34-DCl/Misc/Appg-II/07/8608, dated 20-10-2007, approached the Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi, with the request to supply the copies of Goods Declarations, invoices, bills of lading and Packing Lists, in respect of the consignments pertaining to said container of electronic goods imported by Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, cleared from the Collectorate. Similarly, Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Custom House Branch, Karachi, was also requested vide letter C.No.34-DCI/Misc/Appg-II/07/8672, dated 29-10-2007, to confirm and verify the genuineness of bank stamps signatures affixed on the face of copies of GDs and payment of duty and taxes in the National Exchequer. In response, the Collector, Collectorate of Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi, vide letter C.No. SI/Misc/15/2007/PQ-Import, dated 15-11-2007, intimated that the clearance of containerized cargo is dealt with by Model Customs Collectorate, PaCCS, Custom House, Karachi. However, the import statistics of the Collectorate with reference to the particulars of Goods Declaration, viz-a-viz, IGM No. and date mentioned in the above referred letter have been checked which revealed that the same were not cleared through the Collectorate meaning thereby that no Goods Declarations were in fact filed for Customs clearance of the aforesaid container. The Operation Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Custom House Branch, Karachi, vide letter No. CHB/Admn/2007, dated 31-10-2007, intimated that the cash Nos. supplied by the Directorate General including cash No. C-775 dated 5-3-2007, shown on the Goods Declaration of Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, contains forged stamps and signatures on the challans. The Manager Operations, (South), PRAL, vide letter No. PRAL/Khi/Cus/ 10966, dated 14-11-2007, forwarded a report showing information of relevant Import General Manifest which were found in Customs Computer Database. From the scrutiny of said report, it was found that no "Gate Out" event took place against the listed indexes no GDs were filed/processed against the same. It was specifically intimated by PRAL that the gate out programme does not allow any consignment/ container to be delivered without filing/ processing of a Goods Declaration and without completion of all Customs prerequisites such as payment of duties/taxes, etc. Perusal of GD bearing cash No. C-775 dated 5-3-2007 revealed that neither IGM No. date, nor index number has been indicated in column 8 of GD nor Customs Machine number is endorsed thereon, which are essentially required for filing of Goods Declarations. In order to further verify the genuineness of GD bearing cash No. C-775 dated 5-3-2007, statements of Customs officers, namely, Mr. Abdul Rehman Kurd, Principal Appraiser, and Mr. Gul Muhammad Jokhio, Apprising Officer, Collectorate of Customs, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi, were also recorded as their stamps and signatures appeared on GD. It was stated/confirmed by the said officers that neither they processed the aforesaid GD nor it bears their signatures. According to their statements, the GD bears their fake and forged signatures and stamps. From the preliminary investigation conducted so far, it transpired that neither any Goods Declaration was filed by Messrs Musafa International, Lahore through Messrs N.J International, CHAL, No. 2392, Karachi nor duty and taxes amounting to Rs.341,842 were paid vide cash No. C-775 dated 5-3-2007, in National Bank of Pakistan, Custom House Branch, Karachi. From the scrutiny of the computer print out supplied by the Manager Operation (South), PRAL, Custom House, Karachi, it transpired that the consignment imported vide IGM No. KPQI 182 of 2007, dated 28-2-2007, index No. 47 VIR No.1355-2202007, imported by Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, was manifested for transshipment to Lahore Dry Port, Lahore, through Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PaCCS), of the Model Custom Collectorate, Custom House, Karachi. Subsequent to the fraudulent removal of said consignment on 17-3-2007 on the basis of fake and fictitious Goods Declaration Cash No.C-775 dated 5-3-2007, the Transshipment Permit No. 1952 dated 18-3-2007, was manifested with the (PaCCS), the Model Customs Collectorate, Custom House, Karachi to avoid detection of fraudulent removal of consignment and consequential penal action.

4.Thus the accused, Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, with the active connivance of accused Jamal Durrani son of Javed Durrani and Naila Jamal, partner of Messrs N.J International, CHAL No.23925, and other associates in crime, have indulged themselves into the heinous crime of fraudulent and illegal removal of containerized goods from QICT, Karachi, by abusing the Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PaCCS) and have therefore, defrauded the state exchequer in violation of the provisions of sections 16, 32(1), (2), 32-A, 79, 80 and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969, punishable under clauses (9), (14), (14-A) (43), (47) of subsection (1) of section 156 ibid. Mr. Jamal Durrani son of Javed Durrani was then under judicial custody at Peshawar in case FIR No.01/08, dated 4-1-2008, lodged against him and others, by the staff of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Peshawar, in case of missing transshipment containers destined to up-country Dry Ports. Subsequent to the lodging of FIR, the scope of investigation was broadened and the preliminary statement of accused Jamal Durrani son of Javed Durrani, who was then under judicial custody at Central Prison, Peshawar, in connection with an another FIR lodged against him by the staff of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Regional Office, Peshawar, was recorded at Central Prison, Peshawar. During recording of statement, the aforesaid accused person disclosed that he was engaged in the business of working as Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agents for the last sixteen years. Since 1992-93 upto 2005, he remained partner of Messrs Durrani Traders, Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agent, CHAL No. 1469, Karachi, owned by his father. However, in March 2006, he established a new clearing and forwarding agency, namely Messrs N.J. International, Karachi, CHAL No.2392, Karachi, through a partnership deed signed by him and his wife Naila Jamal. Both of them used to give copies of blank Goods Declaration duly signed to one, Naeem Qureshi, and various other persons, for clearance of imported goods against receipt of Rs.1000 per G.D. In the meantime, his wife Naila Jamal established close relationship with Naeem Qureshi. Consequently, his wife separated from him and married Naeem Qureshi. As far as the matter of clearance of 1 container imported by Messrs Musafa International, Lahore and fraudulently cleared from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi, against fake and fictitious Goods Declaration through Messrs N.J. International, CHAL No.2392, Karachi without payment of leviable duty and taxes is concerned, he said that has nothing to do with the affairs of the aforesaid clearing and forwarding agency. According to him the fraudulent clearance of aforesaid 1 container have been done by his ex-wife, Naila Jamal, and Naeem Qureshi, who married on 28-2-2007. Moreover, accused Jamal Durrani absconded after getting transit bail from the Honourable Court of Session Judge, Peshawar on 23-6-2008. Subsequent to the filing of interim challan, this Court issued non bailable warrant of arrest against accused Muhammad Naeem son of Muhammad Rustam Qureshi. On receipt of a tip, the said accused person was arrested on 26-4-2008, while he was driving a Honda City Car bearing Reg No. AJZ-238. At the time of interception, the personal search as well as of the said Honda City Car, was carried out in presence of witness, namely, Mr. Abdul Rasheed, Intelligence Officer, which resulted in the recovery of various incriminating documents/evidences including passport, cheque books issued by various banks in the name of accused Muhammad Naeem, and notice sent to Messrs Kashan Traders/importer criminally involved in FIR No. Appg-II/34- F/DCl/Misc/2007, dated 15-4-2008, which prove his direct involvement in the crime. The recovered documents as per inventory duly signed by the accused and the witnesses were seized against mushirnama. The vehicle bearing Registration No. AJZ-238 was handed over to the claimant, namely, Munir Ahmed Hashmi, in compliance of the Court order, dated 14-5-2008. During interrogation of the accused Muhammad Naeem, he disclosed that he was working in the capacity of Manager in Messrs Imex International and Logistics Trading, Karachi, and the head office of the company is situated at Islamabad. The said firm was clearing the containers of US and NATO Forces operating in Afghanistan through the clearing and forwarding agency Messrs N.J. International, CHAL No.2392, Karachi. He opened account No. 6112-349072-050 in Standard Chartered Bank, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi. During the year 2006, Faisal Shehzad son of Sajjad Haider Awan, one of his childhood friend, approached him and devised a plan to fraudulently clear the containerized import cargo in the name of various importers from QICT, Karachi, on the basis of bogus and fabricated Goods Declaration without payment of duty and taxes. Consequently, accused Faisal Shehzad and Naeem Qureshi arranged the phony and dubious firms of Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Faisalabad, etc. The modus operandi for illegal removal of the container was also discussed, wherein the bill of lading/invoices were to be supplied to the accused Muhammad Naeem for further fabricating and manipulating processing and clearance of the containerized cargo. In sequel to the settlement of modalities of clandestine removal of containers, Faisal Shehzad sent millions of rupees through his bank Account No.7405- 355985-050 of Union Bank (Standard Chartered Bank), Shadman Branch, Lahore, and through on-line deposit as well in Naeem Qureshi's bank Account No.6112-349072-050 (Messrs Imex International Logistic), Account No.6112-349414-053, (US$ Dollar Account) of Standard Chartered Bank, Korangi Branch, Karachi No.6105-374326-050 of Standard Chartered Bank, 26th Street, DHA, Karachi, Account No.6208-197915-001, Standard Chartered Bank, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, all in the name of Muhammad Naeem Qureshi, and Account No.6105-252546-050, opened in the name of Messrs N.J. International, Karachi from time to time. During the course of investigation, Notices under section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, were issued to the Managers, Standard Chartered Bank, Karachi, requiring them to provide information/ particulars of accounts along with bank statements, account opening form and CNIC of introducers of bank accounts in respect of the said accounts. In response, the aforesaid banks supplied the requisite information in respect of Account No.6112-349414-053, 6112-349072-050, 6208-197915-001 and 6105- 374326-050. From the scrutiny of bank statements, it transpired that during the period 1-10-2006 to 17-9-2008, an amount of Rs.106,703,375.10 was credited in Account No. 6112-349072-050. Similarly, during the period 17-5-2007 to 17-9-2007, an amount of Rs.1,42,91,210.00 was credited in Account No.6105-374326-050, and Rs.11,558,267.00 in Account No.6208-197915-001, whereas, US$ 7613 were credited in Account No.6112-349414-053. The involvement of accused Muhammad Naeem in the crime is established from the fact that he established his own importing firm, namely, Messrs Al-Huraim international, Karachi, and also opened Account No.6112-349072-050, in the name and style of Messrs Imex International Logistics Trading, Karachi, whereby the business addresses of both the aforesaid firms have been shown as 1-Marium Palace, Bohri Road, opp. New Custom House, Karachi, which as per record of the licensing authority (Collectorate of Customs, (Appraisement), Custom House, Karachi) is the business address of Messrs N.J. International, CHAL No. 2392, Karachi, whose numerous Goods Declaration were used by accused Muhammad Naeem and others, namely, Babar Hussain, Farhan Ibrahim, Naila Jamal and Jamal Durrani, for the fraudulent clearance of containerized cargo from QICT Karachi. In order to operate the business of illegal removal of containerized cargo from QICT, accused Muhammad Naeem supervised racket from his office situated at Office No.1, Marium Palace, Bohn Road, opposite Custom House, Karachi. He detailed two of his close associates and his employees, accused Babar Hussain son of Adalat Hussain, and Farhan Ibrahim, (co-accused), to whom he used to hand over the copies of bill of ladings/invoices received from Faisal Shehzad from Lahore, for further processing at QICT, Karachi. Upon receipt of the said import documents, accused Babar Hussain and accused Farhan Ibrahim used to hand over import documents to one accused Shakoor Alam son of Ilm Din. The said accused person on the basis of import documents used to deposit security amount arranged by him in the concerned shipping agencies and thereafter received Delivery Orders/NOCs and Gate Passes, which were subsequently handed over to accused Babar Hussain, who prepared fake Goods Declaration of various clearing and forwarding agencies including Messrs N.J International CHAL No.2392, Karachi, through Messrs Awan, Typist and Enterprises, near Custom House, Karachi, owned by one, Nasir Awan, under the instructions of accused Muhammad Naeem. Subsequently, accused Babar Hussain worked in association with accused Farhan Ibrahim, an ex-employee of Messrs Pakistan Revenue Automation Limited (PRAL), who was sacked from PRAL on the charges of embezzlement. During his employment, he remained posted at QICT, Karachi, and after losing his job, he started customs clearance business privately and developed association with accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi and Babaar Hussain. He prepared Goods Declaration by endorsing fake and bogus examination report and also affixed seals/ stamps of Customs and bank, including fake cash numbers and used to approach accused Allah Buksh an employee of Messrs DP World, Terminal operator, QICT, Karachi, who arranged/managed gate passes on the basis of which containers were removed from QICT, Karachi. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to the removal of containers from QICT, accused Nisar Ahmed son of Sher Dad Khan, Yard supervisor of Messrs DP World, Terminal operator, QICT, Karachi, used to facilitate the prompt and speedy removal of containers, including container imported by Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, through public transport. Thus, accused Allah Buksh and Nisar Khan, while employed with Messrs QICT/DP World, Karachi, in order to facilitate the organized crime of fraudulent clearance of container on the basis of fake GDs arranged gate passes, made fake entries in the computer system and managed loading of containers on the vehicles for speedy removal/exit from the QICT. The investigation pertaining to the accused persons, namely Babar Hussain, Farhan Ibrahim, and Nisar Ahmed have further been conducted to ascertain their involvement in illicit financial transaction coupled with criminal involvement in manipulation, fabrication and dubious preparation of GDs and for speedy clearance/fraudulent removal of containerized cargo from QICT. After hectic efforts, few accounts of the aforesaid accused persons have been found. It is evident on record that Account Nos.113-010-0132-9 and 6105-364520-050 maintained in Messrs Askari Commercial Bank Limited, Timbar Market, Karachi, and Standard Chartered Bank, 26th Street Branch, D.H.A., Karachi, respectively, were operated by accused Babar Hussain and shown an amount of Rs.43,218,145 which has been deposited during the period 1-1-2007 to 17-9-2007. Similarly, Account No.6208-335062-001 operated in Standard Chartered Bank, I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, by accused Frahan Ibrahim shows an amount of Rs.19,370,9841- and Account No.0081-000164-01-5 of Bank Al-Habib, Jacson Branch, Keamari, Karachi, jointly operated by accused Nisar Ahmed and his wife, Mst. Irshad, and Account No.1076-0081-001164-0107 of Bank Al-Habib Limited, Jacson Bazar Branch, Keamari, Karachi, operated by Mst. Irshad, wife of accused Nisar Ahmed, shows deposit of Rs.21,935,916. It is of pivotal importance to place on record that through the aforesaid Account No.1076-0081-00016-01-5, maintained in Bank Al-Habib Limited, Kemari, Karachi, was jointly opened by the accused Nisar Ahmed himself. The active connivance of the accused Nisar Ahmed with accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi has further been firmed up with the transaction of Rs.4,575,000 from the Account No.6112-349072-050 of Standard Chartered Bank, Korangi Branch, Karachi, maintained and operated by accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi, to the Account No.1076-0081-000164-01-5 of accused Nisar Ahmed in Al- Habib Bank Limited, Keamari, Karachi, through cheque Nos.3002740, dated 4-1-2007, 4859483, dated 6-2-2007, 4859304, dated 19-2-2007, 5909981, dated 8-5-2007 and 5909990, dated 11-5-2007, paid against his services towards clandestine removal/clearance of containerized cargo from QICT. Besides, huge cash amount was also credited in the aforesaid accounts which was paid to the accused Nisar Ahmed by accused Naeem Qureshi. The accused Faisal Shehzad son of Sajad Haider Awan is under judicial custody at Lahore and Shakoor Alam is on bail in case FIRs Nos.06/07 dated 7-2-2007, 08/07 dated 25-7-2007, and 16 of 2007, and 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19/2007, lodged by the staff of Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Lahore and Faisalabad. It is pertinent to place on record that production order issued in the name of Faisal Shehzad and Shakoor Alam by this Honourable Court, dated 16-8-2008, were sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Lahore for production of the accused persons at Karachi. It is further to point out that the Jail authorities did not produce any of the above-mentioned accused persons in compliance of this Honourable Court's order as yet. The accused Shakoor Alam absconded after getting bail from Lahore. The accused Faisal Shehzad has been granted bail by this Honourable Court against a surety of Rs.200,000 and PR Bond of like amount, on 26-6-2009. During interrogation of accused Muhammad Naeem son of Rustam Qureshi, it has revealed that in order to fraudulently remove the containerized Cargo, one accused Raziq Dino Jokhio son of Din Muhammad Jokhio, who happens to be a private person and working at the office of Gate SPO, at Exit gate of QICT, had also assisted and connived in the crime. On the pointation of Muhammad Naeem, the said Raziq Dino Jokhio son of Din Muhammad Jokhio was arrested on 3-5-2008, and Notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, was served upon him. The accused Raziq Dino Jokhio was also interrogated. He disclosed that accused Babar Hussain used to communicate to him details of fraudulently removed containers numbers, gate passes, importers name and gate out date, with the direction to remove the gate passes from the gate record of the Collectorate of Customs (Port Muhammad Bin Qasim), Karachi, and to return the same to him (Babar Hussain) against deal money. The accused Raziq Dino has admitted/confessed entire scenario of clandestine removal of containers, removal of official records, i.e. gate passes and involvement/connivance in organized crime, before senior officers of this Directorate General, MCC (Preventive) and MCC (Appraisement), Karachi recorded on 7-5-2008. The accused was granted bail by the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi vide order dated 16-12-2008. During investigation, it transpired that accused Babar Hussain, hired the services of Aslam Niazi, muqadim/commission agent, who arranged local transport for transportation of containers from QICT, Karachi to Messrs Z.K. Niazi, private container yard, Maripur Road, Karachi, owned by one, Amir Niazi, and to other parts of city as per instructions of Babar Hussain. According to Aslam Niazi, further transportation of containers/goods to upcountry was arranged by one, accused Shahid Iqbal of Messrs Arain Logistics, Maripur Truck Stand, Karachi. He also disclosed that local transportation charges in respect of these containers were always paid to him by Muhammad Naeem through Cash/cheques at his office situated at 1- Marium Palace, Bohri, Road, opposite Custom House, Karachi. In support of his statement, he provided his Account No.113-0-1010-0112-1 maintained in Messrs Askari Commercial Bank Limited, Timber Market Branch, Karachi. The Manager of Messrs Askari Commercial Bank supplied bank statement of Muhammad Aslam Niazi. The scrutiny of Bank Statement revealed that an amount of 0.7 millions (Approximate), has been deposited through cheques from Messrs Union Bank/Standard Chartered Bank, Korangi Branch, Karachi (operated by accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi) into the aforesaid account of Muhammad Aslarn Niazi in Askari commercial Bank Timber Market Branch, Karachi. However, Muhammad Aslam Niazi produced copies of three cheques No.3475050, dated 21-1-2007, 3475046, dated 20-1-2007 and 5910490, dated 1-4-2007, amounting to Rs.424,500 in support of his statement that the above mentioned amount was paid to him by Muhammad Naeem Qureshi as transportation charges of containerized cargo. The claim of Naeem Qureshi that millions of rupees transactions in his various bank accounts were the amounts sent by Raja Eijaz Akhtar, proprietor of Messrs Imex International Logistics of Islamabad, has also been probed. Raja Ejaz Akhtar was summoned to join investigation in respect of transaction made to the accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi for rendering his services in transportation of NATO/ISAF stationed in Afghanistan. According to him, the accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi was employed in the capacity of Manager of Messrs Imex International Logistics and looked after clearance and safe transportation of containerized cargo of NATO/ISAF from Karachi to Afghanistan during period 2005 to 2007. An amount of Rs.25 million (approx) has been paid to accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi through on-line deposit for clearance of NATO/ISAF cargo in his two accounts of Standard Chartered Bank, Korangi Branch, and I.I. Chundrigar Road, Branch. However, he categorically stated that not a single penny was paid to the said accused under the head of transportation charges as claimed by accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi. The scrutiny of the bank statement of bank Account No. 6112-349072-050 maintained by accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi in Standard Chartered Bank, Korangi Branch Karachi has shown transfer of huge amount of money from the account of Taj Ali and Rizwan Khan from Peshawar, who are also associate-in-crime. The investigation pertaining to Messrs Musafa International, situated at E/161, Kucha Suddan, Sharja Bara Centre, Shah Alam Market, Lahore, who had imported 1 container of electronics goods, was carried out. The inhabitant of the locality has not identified the office by that name in the locality. Therefore, the firm is bogus with fictitious address. Subsequent to the lodging of FIR No.34-Q/DCI/ Appg-II/Misc/2007, dated 12-5-2008, and filing of Supplementary Challan No.34-Q/DCI/Appg-II/Misc/2007, the scope of investigation was further broadened and two accused persons, namely, Minhaj Ali son of Raza Hussain Wazir Ali, and Zahid Islam Afridi son of Mujeeb Khan Afridi, were arrested on 8-10-2008, and were produced before the Court. The said accused persons were remanded to the custody up to 22-10-2008, for joint investigation in respect of eight FIRs including subject FIR. During interrogation, accused Minhaj Ali disclosed that he has established his business in the name and style of Messrs Murad Trading Co, Karachi and the basic function of the said company is to deposit securities with the various shipping companies at Karachi on behalf of the consignees/ transporters through scheduled banks in the shape of pay orders on the basis of bills of lading regarding import containers arriving at different ports at Karachi. Subsequent to the deposit of securities he receives delivery orders and gate passes from the concerned shipping companies/lines on behalf of the importers/transporters. Accused Minhaj Ali further disclosed that during the month of March 2007 accused Zahid Islam Afridi approached him and delivered one Bills of Lading No.NYKS-9479268481 in respect of 01 x 40 ft container Nos. MSKU-5885933 imported by Messrs Mian Trading Company, Lahore, and asked to deposit securities with concerned shipping lines through bank pay order and get the delivery orders and gate passes from Messrs Maersk Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and Messrs Yaseen Shipping Line, Karachi, In response accused he (Minhaj Ali) deposited securities vide Pay Order No.1822772 dated 6-3-2007 against container No.MSKU-5885933, issued by Messrs Bank Al- Habib Ltd, Keamari, Karachi and received delivery orders and gate passes from the aforesaid shipping lines which he handed over to Zahid Islam Afridi. Similarly, during interrogation accused Zahid Islam Afridi, disclosed that he is proprietor of Messrs Azad Afridi Goods Transport Company, situated at Hawksbay Road, Karachi. Four years back he established business terms with accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi, when he was providing his transport company's services to Messrs Imex International Logistics, Islamabad who was clearing containerized cargo for NATO Forces based at Afghanistan through accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi, who at that time was representative of Messrs Imex International Logistics, Islamabad at Karachi. Subsequently, accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi started his commercial import also and in connection with the import of 05 containers imported in the name and style of Messrs Mian Trading Company Lahore, accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi delivered him one original bills of lading at his office situated at 1-Marium Palace, Bohri Road, opposite Custom House, Karachi, which he delivered to accused Minhaj Ali for deposit of securities and subsequent issuance of delivery orders and gate passes. Accused Minhaj Ali, deposited securities and received delivery order and gate passes, from the concerned shipping lines which were subsequently given to him (Zahid Islam Afridi). Upon receipt of these delivery orders and gate passes from accused Minhaj Ali he delivered the same to accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi. Upon receipt of these delivery orders and gate passes from accused Minhaj Ali he delivered the same to accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi. After that Muhammad Naeem Qureshi arranged the clearance and transportation of these containers from QICT to a private container yard namely Z.K. Niazi Container Yard situated at Hawks bay Road, Maripur Road, Karachi. To further transport these containers to Lahore, accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi contacted accused Zahid Islam Afridi and on his instructions he transported these containers at the required destinations at Lahore, as told by accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi and the transportation charges of these containers were paid to accused Zahid Islam Afridi by accused Muhammad Naeem Qureshi. In the light of interrogation of the aforesaid two accused persons, notice under section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, was issued to the Manager Bank Al-Habib, Ltd, Keamari, Karachi, requiring therein to supply the copies of pay orders issued in favour of concerned shipping companies on behalf of Messrs Murad Trading Company, Karachi, vide his account No.0081- 000411-017, operated by accused Minhaj Ali in respect of said 09 containers. In response, the Branch Manager Bank Al-Habib, vide letter dated 16-10-2008, supplied the copies of pay orders, accordingly. Mr. Minhaj Ali and Zahid Islam Afridi, volunteered to depose their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Karachi. Therefore, applications were moved before the Court of Vth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Malir Karachi, praying therein for recording of voluntarily/confessional statements of the aforesaid two accused persons under section 164, Cr.P.C. The Vth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi, on 21-10-2008, recorded the confessional statements of the said accused persons and remanded them to the judicial custody at Malir Prison, Karachi.

5.Messrs DP World, Qasim International Container Terminal, (QICT) was licensed by the Customs for proper receipt, discharge, storage, handling, delivery, and loading of imports, transit and transshipment of containerized cargo by sea other than off-dock terminals within the meaning of Rule 423 (xxiv) of the Customs Rules, 2001, as notified vide S.R.O. 450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001, and amended vide S.R.O. 704(I)/2007, dated 14-7-2007, with online facility of electronic filing of documents with the PaCCS. Under Rule 556 of S.R.O. ibid, the terminal operator had following obligations Rule 556 states as under:--

The Terminal Operator shall have the following rights and obligations under PaCCS:

(a) Safe-Custody of Cargo/ Goods and Containers;

(i)The Terminal Operator is obligated to ensure the safe custody of all goods, cargo and containers received either from a vessel or from the shipper's truck and to ensure that the goods, cargo and containers are not tampered with in any manner whatsoever and that the container seals are not removed or replaced in any manner whatsoever.

(c) Entry and Exit control:

(i)The Terminal Operator shall control all entry and exit points at the terminal and shall not permit entry or exit of any goods, vehicle or person from or to the terminal except through the designated entry and exit points, however, the Terminal Operator may change or modify or add additional entry and exit points by informing the Collector in writing at least fifteen days in advance of such change, modification or addition, whereupon, the Collector may allow movement of cargo and personnel from such modified or additional exit or entry points after verification by technical team.

(ii)The Terminal Operator shall not permit entry or exit of any goods, from or to the terminal unless so authorized electronically by PaCCS.

(iii)The Terminal Operator shall have complete liability for any breakage, theft or pilferage of any goods from the terminal where against the customs authorities shall not accept any liability for such events.

6.The QICT/terminal operator facilitated occurrence of this scam by ignoring the PaCCS Rule 556(c)(II) issued vide S.R.O. 450(I)/2001 dated 18-6-2001 which envisaged that 'the Terminal Operator shall not permit entry or exit of any goods, from or to the terminal unless so authorized electronically by PaCCS'. The Terminal Operator thereby violated the Customs Rules and Procedures and delivered the un-cleared containers unauthorizedly. Being the custodian of the imported goods, the QICT failed to discharge its duties which resulted in colossal loss of Government revenue. The staff of QICT issued gate passes for the containers for fake GDs even with no machine numbers'/'index numbers'/'IGM numbers', etc. There was no effective system of Customs monitoring at the exit gate where crucial document such as gate passes are received from the truck drivers/agents, and where the cargo finally passes out of the gate. The gate passes so received by the exit gate staff of the QICT did not bear the stamps/signatures of the PRAL/One-Custom's staff at the exit gate, yet the same were entertained for movement of containers out of the gate. The entire enforcement mechanism at the exit gate was circumvented by the unscrupulous importers due to presence of unauthorized person at the exit gate. The concerned Senior Preventive Officers and sepoys posted at the exit gate during the period when the scam was occurring failed to perform their duties which resulted in the said tax fraud. It is, therefore, established that accused Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, Messrs DP World, Naeem Qureshi, Raziq Dino Jokhio, Faisal Shahzad, Jamal Durrani, Naila Jamal, Shakoor Alam, Babar Hussain, Farhan Ibrahim, Allah Buksh, Nisar Ahmed, Shahid Iqbal Arain, and Customs Staff CARe/Port Qasim in league with their other companions are fully involved in the fraudulent removal of the containers/goods from Port Qasim, Karachi without payment of duty and taxes amounting to Rs.183,600,000 (approx) and are liable for action for the offences and violation of sections 16, 18, 32 (1) (2), 32-A, 79, 80 and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969, read with sections 3, 6, 3, 34 and 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and Section 148(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, further read with Section 3A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, punishable under clauses (9), (14), (14-A) (43), (47) and (77) of subsection (1) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, and relevant provisions of allied laws. As the exact description, quantity of the goods is not available, therefore, the recovery of Government taxes has been calculated in terms of clause 43 of subsection (1) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, which is applicable to the cases where exact description, quantity of goods is not ascertainable due to non-availability of goods. In such circumstances the incidence of tax and penalty is calculated on the basis of number of packages x Rs.100,000 which in this case comes to Rs.183,600,000.

7.In view of above, the importer/clearing agents and other respondents named below were called vide notice dated 13-10-2010 upon to show-cause under sections 32(2), 32(3) and 32A of the Customs Act, 1969 and section 36(1) and (2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, section 14 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and sections 148-A and 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as to why not the action for contravention of the provisions of sections 18, 32, 32(1), 32(2), 32-A, 79, 80, 83, 121, 157, 178, 192, 202-A and 207 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with clause 31 of Customs General Order No.12/2002, punishable under clauses 1, 9, 14, 14A, 43, 47, 63, 77, 81, 82, 86, 88 and 90 of section 156(1) ibid, read with Chapter XIV of the Customs Rules, 2001, should not be taken against the aforesaid respondents.

8.The matter was referred to the adjudicating officer. The Departmental Representative submitted the comments and the matter was decided by the Additional Collector Adjudication vide Order-in-Original No.21 dated 11-3-2013. The arguments/comments of departmental representative and the findings of adjudicating officer have been reproduced hereunder:--

"The departmental representative submitted following comments on the reply from the respondent No. 6, Mr. Jamal Durrani:

"With reference to written reply submitted by Jamal Durrani to show-cause notice, it is humbly submitted that:

(i)The respondent being owner/ partner of clearing agency Messrs N.J. International (CHAL No.2392) has been nominated in all the 32 FIRs pertaining to missing containers/fraudulent removal of goods without payment of Customs Duty against fake documents from QICT.

(ii)The respondent while in judicial custody at Peshawar in connection with similar case FIRs obtained Transit Bail from Civil Judge, Peshawar, to appear before the learned trial Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi. However, he did not appear the said Court and as such has been absconding so far. The learned trial Court has accordingly initiated action against the said person under section 87 of Cr.P.C.

(iii)Unless respondent appears in person to contest the charges against him, his written reply is not maintainable and is liable to be struck off.

2. In view of fore-going facts, the written reply submitted by the respondents merits no consideration as being unsubstantiated. Respondents may be directed to appear in person before the adjudicating authority as well as the trial Court."

17. No representation or reply has been received from any of the other respondents i.e. Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Although, Ms. Kausar Fatima, advocate, attended hearings on behalf of respondent No. 3, Mr. Naeem Qureshi, but no reply to the show-cause notice was submitted despite four hearings allowed in this case and the requisite documents provided to her. Similarly, no reply was submitted on behalf of respondent No.10, but in response to hearing notices, a letter dated 7-12-2010 was received from Deputy Collector Customs, Computer Bureau/PRAL, Custom House, Karachi, was received, informing that Mr. Farhan Ibrahim had already been terminated from service in PRAL vide order dated 24-7-2006 and moreover that the notices sent to his lat known mail addresses had returned with the remark "Shifted".

18. I have gone through submission made on behalf of the respondents, as submitted in writing or verbally during the hearings, and also studied the departmental comments. The case involves fraudulent clearance of a consignment of miscellaneous items, including electronic goods imported in one container, from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim against fake and fictitious Goods Declarations without payment of duty and taxes leviable thereon. The amount of duties and taxes has not been ascertained as the complete description of goods was not available. However, penal action under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, has been recommended in the contravention report. The findings, conclusion and order in respect of the role played by each of the respondents and his liability are given below:

(A) Respondent No.1 Messrs Musafa International, Lahore (Importer)

The charge on this respondent is that they imported and cleared a consignment as mentioned in the show-cause notice against fake and fictitious documents without duties and taxes. Messrs DP World QICT, and Messrs Pakistan Revenue Automation, Ltd. Messrs DP World, QICT, provided the computer generated print out of Gate Pass dated 17-3-2007, along with photocopy of Goods Declaration bearing cash No. C-775 dated 5-3-2007, showing clearance of 1 x 40 ft container No. GLDU-058575-0 said to contain 1836 cartons of electronics goods. The Terminal Operator also provided copy of Delivery Order issued by Messrs Maersk Line in favour of Messrs Musafa International, Lahore wherein Messrs Al-Mehran Traders Karachi, were authorized to take delivery of aforesaid container. The concerned shipping company Messrs Maersk Line provided copy of original bill of lading No. 854042993 showing name of consignee as Messrs Musafa International, Lahore and descriptions of goods as 1836 cartons of electronics goods, in one container. The shipping company also provided copy of delivery order in favour of Messrs Al-Mehran Traders, Karachi, on behalf of importers Messrs Musafa International, Lahore. The import statistics of the Port Qasim Collectorate with reference to the particulars of Goods Declaration, viz-a-viz, IGM number and date were checked which revealed that the same were not cleared through the said Collectorate meaning thereby that no Goods Declarations were in fact filed for Customs clearance of the container involved. The Operation Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Custom House Branch, Karachi, vide letter No.CHB/Admn/2007, dated 31-10-2007, intimated that the cash numbers supplied by the Directorate General including cash No.C-775 dated 5-3-2007, shown on the Goods Declaration of Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, contains forged stamps and signatures on the challans. Thus the accused, Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, with the active connivance of other co-respondents resorted to fraudulent and illegal removal of containerized goods from QICT, Karachi, by abusing the Pakistan Customs Computerized System (PaCCS). Though the respondents maintain that their name was misused by actual culprits but the documentary evidence as discussed above establishes the charges. In view of above, the charges against respondent No.1, Messrs Musafa International, Lahore, stand established as the goods were removed from the customs area without filing a Goods Declaration or filing a transshipment permit and duties and taxes involved were evaded. The amount duties and taxes could not be ascertained as description and specification of the goods is not liable. However, the same is recoverable from the respondents as and when ascertained. Further, a penalty of Rs. 5,000,000 is imposed on this respondent under clauses 1, 9, 14, 14A, 43, 47, 63, 77, 86 and 90 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. All efforts are required to be made to trace the respondent No. 1 and recover the amount of penalty imposed herein.

(B) Respondent No.2 Messrs DP World (Qasim International Container Terminal), Karachi (Custodian/Terminal Operator):

The respondent No.2, Messrs DP World, Qasim International Container Terminal, (QICT), are the terminal operator and custodian of the goods and have been licensed by the Customs for proper receipt, discharge, storage, handling, delivery, and loading of imports, transit and transshipment of containerized cargo by sea. Under Rule 556 of S.R.O. ibid, the terminal operator had the obligations relating to safe custody of cargo/goods and containers and had to ensure authorized entry and exit of the cargo from the port. In this case, the goods were removed against fake documents and the terminal operator delivered the un-cleared containers unauthorizedly. Being the custodian of the imported goods, the QICT failed to discharge its duties which resulted in colossal loss of Government revenue. The staff of QICT issued gate passes for the containers for fake GDs even with no machine numbers/index numbers' /'IGM numbers', etc and this respondent failed to exercise proper management control over its employees. The cargo in question had to be either cleared through PaCCS and the respondent was bound to allow delivery of goods only against online release by the PaCCS, whereas this respondent allowed delivery against fake and forged manual GDs. As an alternative, this respondent had to ensure fulfillment of procedures relating to transshipment as the goods were manifested for transshipment to Lahore. The charge against this respondent is that it violated rules and laws relating to authorized clearance of goods as stipulated in rule 556, ibid.

The departmental representatives have asserted that this respondent is also liable for the offences committed by their employees, respondents Nos. 13 and 14. It is true to the extent this respondent has to face consequences of the actions of the two of their employees, i.e. respondents Nos.13 and 14, that led to the failure of the respondent No. 2 in complying with the provisions of rules. This respondent also asserts that it cannot be held accountable for the individual offences committed by the respondents Nos. 13 and 14. It is noted that these two respondents have been separately included in the show-cause notice and are liable for their individual actions. However, the respondent No. 2, being the custodian of the imported goods, had to ensure that the goods were to be handed over to the importer or his agent under rules and against proper documents. They failed to fulfill these obligations, which led to the huge loss of government revenue. They allowed their system to be manipulated to facilitate the unauthorized clearance of goods.

The respondent No.2 in their reply have also questioned the making out of this case by the Directorate General, Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, as no notification has been issued under sections 3A and 3E regarding appointment and powers and functions of the said Directorate General. This objection is not admitted as section 3A of the Customs Act, 1969 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2005, which was later substituted by the Finance Act, 2007, whereas the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation was established in August, 1957. Therefore, there was no need to issue any notification under Section 3A, as the Directorate had been established already. As regards notification under section 3E, ibid, the notification for appointment and powers of the Officers of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation - FBR was issued vide S.R.O. 486(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007, under sections 3E and 4 of the Customs Act, 1969. Therefore, the exercise of powers by the said Directorate General in this case is proper and in accordance with the law.

The contention of this respondent is agreed to the extent that they cannot be penalized under clause 43 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, as the words "or any other person having custody of the aforesaid goods" in this were added vide the Finance Bill of 2008, as such cannot be applied retrospectively for the purposes of this show-cause notice.

From above discussion it is evident that the failure of the respondent terminal operator to follow the rules in relation to safe custody and authorized entry and exit of goods, as discussed above, render it liable to action under clauses 1, 9, 47 and 63 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 2,000,000 is imposed on this respondent under aforesaid clauses of section 156 (1), ibid.

(C) Respondent No.3 Mr. Naeem Qureshi son of Muhammad Rustam Qureshi:

Although, Ms. Kausar Fatima, advocate, attended hearings on behalf of respondent No. 3, Mr. Naeem Qureshi, but no reply to the show-cause notice was submitted despite four hearings allowed in this case. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. This respondent used clearing license of Messrs N.J. International for clearance of imports. He also worked for Messrs Imex International which was clearing the containers of US and NATO Forces operating in Afghanistan through the clearing and forwarding agency Messrs N.J. International. The charges against Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qureshi, respondent No.3, are based on his own statements, various documents and bank records presented by the departmental representative during the course of hearing. The respondent No. 3, disclosed during the course of interrogation that he, in collaboration with Jamal Durrani, and others mentioned in foregoing paras organized a scheme for the illegal removal of containers loaded with commercial goods from Port Muhammad Bin Qasim without payment of duty/taxes. The respondent No. 5 Faisal Shezad and Naeem Qureshi contacted phony and dubious firms of Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Faisalabad, etc for this purpose. The modus operandi was that the bill of lading/invoices were to be supplied to this respondent for further fabricating, manipulating, processing, and clearance of the containerized cargo. The bank statements confirm transfer of huges sums of money between accounts of these collaborators. The refunds from shipping lines have been received in his account. Muhammad Naeem Qureshi arranged the clearance and transportation of the container from QICT to Lahore. The factual accounts reveal him as the central figure in the whole scam of removal of containers in this and other identical cases without duties and taxes as already decided vide Order-in-Original No.01/2011 dated 10-1-2011. He is also punishable under section clause 43 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, which prescribes the penalty for the owner, as he is found associated with the clearing agency and in view of provisions of subsection (3) of section 209, the clearing agent is also liable in the same way as is the principal. Therefore, charges against him are established. A penalty of Rs.5,000,000 is also imposed on the respondent No.3 under clauses 1, 9, 14, 14A, 43, 47, 63, 77, 86 and 90 of section 156(1) of the-Customs Act, 1969, in view of his individual involvement in the whole scam.

(D) Respondent No.4 Mr. Raziq Dino Jokhio son of Din Muhammad Jokhio;

During interrogation of respondent Muhammad Naeem son of Rustam Qureshi, it was revealed that in order to fraudulently remove the containerized cargo, respondent No.04 Mr. Raziq Dino Jokhio son of Din Muhammad Jokhio, who was a private person and working at the office of Gate SPO, at Exit gate of QICT, had also assisted and connived in the crime. This respondent disclosed in his statement that respondent No.11 Babar Hussain used to communicate to him details of fraudulently removed containers numbers, gate passes, importers name, and gate-out date, with the direction to remove the gate passes from the gate record of the Collectorate of Customs (Port Muhammad Bin Qasim), Karachi, and to return the same to him (Babar Hussain) against deal money. The respondent Raziq Dino admitted/confessed entire scenario of clandestine removal of containers, removal of official records, i.e. gate passes, and his involvement/connivance in this organized crime. This clearly establishes the charge of abetting and conniving with the main collaborators as in the show-cause notice. Therefore, a penalty of Rs.300,000 is also imposed on the respondent No. 4 under clauses 1, 9, 77 and 86 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(E) Respondent No. 5 Faisal Shezad son of Sajad Haider Awan:

Neither any one represented the respondent No.5 in the hearings fixed in this case nor was any written reply to the show-cause notice received on their behalf. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed ex parte and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. As per statement of Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qureshi, during the year 2006, Faisal Shezad son of Sajjad Haider Awan, his childhood friend, approached him and devised a plan to fraudulently clear the containerized import cargo in the name of various importers from QICT, Karachi on the basis of bogus and fabricated Goods Declarations without payment of duty and taxes. Consequently, respondent Faisal Shezad and Naeem Qureshi contacted phony and dubious firms of Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Faisalabad, etc. for this purpose. The modus operandi for illegal removal of the container was also discussed, wherein the bill of lading/invoices were to be provided by this respondent to Mr. Muhammad Naeem for further fabricating, manipulating, processing, and clearance of the containerized cargo. The bank statements show transfer of huge sums of money from the bank accounts of Faisal Shezad to that of Naeem Qureshi and similarly huge inflows in his own account. Thus, it is established in the light of aforesaid evidences and documentary proofs, that Faisal Shezad in concert with Naeem Qureshi and others removed illegally the goods in question and deprived the government exchequer of legitimate revenue. A penalty of Rs.1,000,000 is imposed on the respondent No.7 under clauses 1, 9, 14A, 47, 63, 77, 86 and 90 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(F) Respondent No. 6 Jamal Durrani son of Javed Durrani:

This respondent is reported as partner of the firm Messrs N.J. International, the clearing and forwarding agents, which was instrumental in the illegal removal of containers in this case. The bank accounts of this firm show huge transactions between collaborators of this scam. This agency, thus, caused huge loss to the government revenue by illegal removal of goods without payment of duties and taxes. This respondent being the partner of this agency, the charges in show-cause notice are established against him. Moreover, he is also punishable under section clause of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, which prescribes the penalty for the owner, as he is found associated with the clearing agency and in view of provisions of subsection (3) of section 209, the clearing agent is also liable in the same way as is the principal. A penalty of Rs.400,000 is also imposed on the respondent No. 8 under clauses 1, 9, 14A, 43, 47, 63, 77, 86 and 90 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(G) Respondent No.7 Naila Jamal Partner of Messrs N.J. International:

Neither any one represented the respondent No. 7 in the hearings fixed in this case nor was any written reply to the show-cause notice received on their behalf. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed ex parte and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. This respondent is reported as partner of the firm Messrs N.J. International, the clearing and forwarding agents, which was instrumental in the illegal removal of containers in this case. The bank accounts of this firm show huge transactions between collaborators of this scam. This agency, thus, caused huge loss to the government revenue by illegal removal of goods without payment of duties and taxes. This respondent being the partner of this agency, the charges in show-cause notice are established against him. She is also punishable under section clause 43 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, which prescribes the penalty for the owner, as she is found associated with the clearing agency and in view of provisions of subsection (3) of section 209, the clearing agent is also liable in the same way as is the principal. A penalty of Rs.400,000, is also imposed on the respondent No.9 under clauses 1, 9, 14A, 43, 47, 63, 77, 86 and 90 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(H) Respondent No. 8- Mr. Shakoor Alam son of Ilm Din:

This respondent used to receive bill of ladings/invoices received from Babar Hussain son of Adalat Hussain, and Farhan Ibrahim, respondents Nos. 9 and 10, respectively, and associates of Mr. Naeem Qureshi, respondent No. 3. This respondent, on the basis of import documents, used to deposit security amount arranged by him in the concerned shipping agencies, and thereafter received delivery orders/NOCs and gate passes which were subsequently handed over to respondent Babar Hussain, who prepared fake Goods Declaration of various clearing and forwarding agencies. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of this respondent has referred to a letter, vide U.O. No.10(18)L&GPI2002 dated 17-10-2009, written by the Chief F&C, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad, addressed to the Director (Admin), President's Secretariat (Public), Islamabad. The relevant part is reproduced below:

"After probing and interrogating, he (Mr. Shakoor Alam) was found to be mainly connected with depositing the security for the onward movement of containers. His bail was rejected by the Honourable Special Judge Customs, Lahore, but later on, he was granted bail in all cases registered at Faisalabad. The challans in these cases have already been fixed in the Court of Honourable Special Judge, Customs, Lahore. During the investigation, Regional Office, Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar of Directorate General also registered similar cases of illegal removal of containers on the basis of false documents using the cover of transit, transshipment and home consumption GDs.

Director General, Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, has further reported that the role of the complainant (Mr. Shakoor Alam) is apparently restricted to furnishing the security/deposits against the containers (which belong to the shipping company) only and the Regional Office, Lahore is concurrence with Directorate General is considering to assign him the role of witness in the proceedings so that his statement and evidence can be used against the perpetrators of tax fraud for conducting a successful trial. However, challans in the cases registered by Faisalabad Office have already been filed."

Mr. Shakoor Alam has denied any wrongdoing but he also has admitted playing a role in the clearance of goods. He admittedly deposited securities for containers. Other charges against him are not established particularly in view of the Board's report sent to the President Secretariat (Public), as reproduced above, wherein only act of depositing securities has been mentioned. Keeping in view the lesser significance of the role played by him, a lenient view is taken and a penalty of Rs.20,000 is imposed under clauses 1 and 9 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(I) Respondent No. 9- Babar Hussain son of Adalat Hussain:

Neither any one represented the respondent No. 9 in the hearings fixed in this case nor was any written reply to the show-cause notice received on their behalf. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed ex parte and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. In view of statements recorded and bank statements obtained, it is evident that this respondent played a major role in the illegal removal of containers. He was a close associate of respondent No. 3, Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qureshi. He alone with Farhan Ibrahim (respondent No.10), obtained copies of bill of ladings/invoices from respondent No. 3 and used to hand over the same to Shakoor Alam son of Ilm Din and later received delivery orders and gate passes from him. This respondent after receipt of delivery orders and gate passes prepared fake Goods Declaration of various clearing and forwarding agencies, including Messrs N.J International CIIAL No. 2392, Karachi, through Messrs Awan, Typist and Enterprises, near Custom House, Karachi. The investigation also revealed receipt of huge amounts in his bank accounts. The respondent No. 4 Raziq Dino Jokhio disclosed that Babar Hussain used to communicate to him details of fraudulently removed containers numbers, gate passes, importers name, and gate-out date, with the direction to remove the gate passes from the Gate record of the Collectorate of Customs (Port Muhammad Bin Qasim), Karachi, and to return the same to him (Babar Hussain) against deal money. During investigation, it transpired that respondent Babar Hussain hired the services of Aslam Niazi, muqadim/commission agent, who arranged local transport for transportation of containers from QICT, Karachi to Messrs Z.K. Niazi, Private Container Yard, Maripur Road, Karachi. All facts lead to the conclusion that Mr. Babar Hussain played an active role in the unauthorized removal of imported goods and thus caused huge loss to the exchequer. The charges against him are established. A penalty of Rs.400,000 is imposed under clauses 1, 9, 14, 14A, 47, 63 and 90 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(J) Respondent No. 10 Farhan Ibrahim son of Muhammad Ibrahim:

No reply was submitted on behalf of respondents No. 10, but in response to hearing notices, a letter dated 7-12-2010 was received from Deputy Collector Customs, Computer Bureau/ PRAL, Custom House, Karachi, was received, informing that Mr. Farhan Ibrahim had already been terminated from service in PRAL vide order dated 24-7-2006 and moreover that the notices sent to his lat known mail addresses had returned with the remark "Shifted". Neither any one represented the respondent No.10 in the hearings fixed in this case nor was any written reply to the show-cause notice received on their behalf. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed ex parte and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. He was also a close associate of respondent No. 3, Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qureshi. He along with respondent No. 9, obtained copies of bill of ladings/invoices from respondent No. 3 and used to hand over the same to Shakoor Alam son of Ilm Din and later received delivery orders and gate passes from him. Farhan Ibrahim, an ex-employee of Messrs Pakistan Revenue Automation Limited (PRAL), who was sacked from PRAL on the charges of embezzlement. During his employment, he remained posted at QICT, Karachi, and after losing his job he started customs clearance business privately and developed association with respondent Muhammad Naeem Qureshi and Babar Hussain. He prepared Goods Declaration by endorsing fake and bogus examination report and also affixed seals/stamps of Customs and bank, including fake cash numbers and used to approach respondent Allah Buksh, an employee of Messrs DP World, Terminal operator, QICT, Karachi, who arranged/ managed gate passes on the basis of which containers were removed from QICT, Karachi. The investigation also revealed receipt of huge amounts in his bank accounts. These facts confirm his active involvement in the unauthorized removal of imported goods and thus caused huge loss to the exchequer. The charges against him are established. A penalty of Rs.400,000 is imposed under, clauses 1, 9, 14, 14A, 47, 63, and 90 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(K) Respondent No. 11- Allah Buksh son of Noor Muhammad:

Neither any one represented the respondent No. 11 in the hearings fixed in this case nor was any written reply to the show-cause notice received on their behalf. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed ex parte and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. The respondent No.10 prepared fake Goods Declaration and used to approach this respondent Allah Buksh, an employee of Messrs DP World, Terminal operator, QICT, Karachi, who arranged/managed gate passes on the basis of which containers were removed from QICT, Karachi. Thus, respondent Allah Buksh, while employed with Messrs QICTI DP World, Karachi, in order to facilitate the organized crime of fraudulent clearance of container on the basis of fake GDs arranged gate passes and made fake entries in the computer system. Thus, the respondent No.11 played a major role in the illegal removal of the goods and without his role such illegal removal would not have been possible. Therefore, the charges against the respondent No.11 are established and a penalty of Rs.300,000 is also imposed on the respondent No. 6 under clauses 1, 9, 14A, 6, 77 and 86 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(L) Respondent No. 12- Ntsar Khan son of Sher Dad:

Neither any one represented the respondent No. 12 in the hearings fixed in this case nor was any written reply to the show-cause notice received on their behalf. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed ex parte and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. Prior to the removal of containers from QICT, this respondent, being yard supervisor of Messrs DP World, Terminal operator, QICT, Karachi, used to facilitate the prompt and speedy removal of containers, including containers imported by Messrs Malik Enterprises, Lahore, through public transport. The bank statements relied upon by the department also show transfer of huge sums of money in the accounts maintained in the name of this respondent particularly from respondent No.3 Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qureshi. The highlighted facts prove that Mr. Nisar Khan, respondent No.12, abetted the acts of the main collaborators to evade government duties. The charges against him are established. A penalty of Rs.200,000 is imposed on this respondent under clauses 1, 9 and 14A of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(M) Respondent No. 13- Shahid Iqbal son of Manzoor Hussain, Proprietor of Messrs Arain Logistic Cell, Karachi:

Neither any one represented the respondent No. 13 in the hearings fixed in this case nor was any written reply to the show-cause notice received on their behalf. Therefore, there is no option but to proceed ex parte and decide the matter on merit in accordance with the record available. According to Aslam Niazi, further transportation of container/goods to upcountry was arranged by Shahid Iqbal of Messrs Arain Logistics, Karachi. Thus, it is established that this respondent was involved in illegal removal of the goods. The charges in show-cause notice are established. A penalty of Rs.20,000 is also imposed on the respondent No.13, under clauses 1, 63 and 90 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(N) Respondent No. 14 Customs staff of Port Qasim/Customs staff of Model Customs Collectorate (PaCCS), Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi.

It has been alleged in the show-cause notice that there was no effective system of Customs monitoring at the exit gate where crucial document such as gate passes are received from the truck drivers/agents, and where the cargo finally passes out of the gate. The gate passes so received by the exit gate staff of the QICT did not bear the stamps/signatures of the PRALI One-Custom's staff at the exit gate, yet the same were entertained for movement of containers out of the gate. The entire enforcement mechanism at the exit gate was circumvented by the unscrupulous importers due to presence of unauthorized person at the exit gate. The concerned Senior Preventive Officers and sepoys, posted at the exit gate during the period when the scam was occurring, failed to perform their duties which resulted in the said tax fraud. It has been alleged that the Customs Staff CARe/ Port Qasim in league with other respondents were allegedly fully involved in the fraudulent removal of the containers/goods from Port Qasim, Karachi without payment of duty and taxes. However, it is noted that the contravention report submitted does not highlights any individual's specific contravening role. No names have been mentioned. Reply submitted on behalf of staff of Port Qasim Collectorate highlights that neither any specific incriminating role of customs staff has been ascertained nor the function of clearance of PaCCS containers was assigned to them. It has been maintained that until 1-12-2007, it was the responsibility of PaCCS staff during the period involved. No one appeared on behalf of customs staff of MCC PaCCS Karachi.

It is noted that for enforcement of penal provisions mentioned in contravention report, it was required that individual incriminating roles were identified which has not been done. The show-cause notice mentions two penal provisions which are related to officers of customs i.e. clauses 81 and 82 of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, as are reproduced below:--

81. If any officer of customs, or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling, is guilty of a willful breach of the provisions of this Act,	Such officer or person shall, on conviction before a Special Judge, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to fine, or to both.	General"
82. If any officer of customs, or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling, practices or attempts to practice, any fraud for the purpose of injuring the customs revenue, or abets or connives at any such fraud, or any attempt to practice any such fraud.	such officer or person shall, on conviction before a Special Judge, be liable to Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or to fine, or to both.	General"

The above provisions clearly stipulate that the cases of offences committed by the customs officers shall be heard and decided by the Special Judge and as such are outside the purview of these quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that no individual departmental officers have been charged and also the aforesaid provisions, this adjudicating officer is not able to take any action against the "Customs staff of Port Qasim/Customs staff of Model Customs Collectorate (PaCCS), Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi" and advises the reporting department to highlight the individual roles and make out a case for departmental disciplinary proceedings and also prosecution before Special Judge, if so warranted."

9.Feeling aggrieved from the Order-in-Original, the appellants filed appeals before the Collector Customs Appeals, Karachi, who vide Order-in-Appeal No.5719/11 dated 16-8-2011 dismissed the appeals. The operative part of the Order-in-Appeal is as follows:--

"6. I have thoroughly examined the entire case record and given very careful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. In terms of the provisions of law contained in section 195-B of the Act, the Collector (Appeals) is not allowed to proceed with an appeal unless the appellant deposits the adjudged amount of duty/taxes and/or penalty or the Collector (Appeals) himself dispenses with such deposit. The aforesaid provisions of law are reproduced as under:-

"195-B. Deposit, pending appeal, of duty demanded or penalty levied.---Where, in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of the customs authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the proper officer the duty demanded or the penalty levied:

34[Provided that where in any particular case the Collector (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Collector (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he, or it, may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of revenue.]

35[Provided further that an order dispensing with such deposit shall, without effecting the appeal, cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months following the day on which it is made unless the appeal is finally decided earlier and nothing in the order dispensing with such deposit which as ceased to have effect shall debar the appropriate officer to recover the amount of the duty demanded or penalty levied.]

Of the four judgments relied upon by the learned counsel only two judgment (PLD 1996 Lah 672 and 1993 CLC 1405) relate to indirect taxes. Therefore, it would be appropriate to follow the verdict of the Hon'ble courts in these cases. In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Court had held that the power to dispense with deposit is discretionary with the Collector but that discreation like any other is to be exercised in a judicial, fair and responsible manner. Perhaps the most relevant judgment on this issue was passed by Hon'ble High Court of Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1058 of 1993, in the context of subsection (3) of section 45 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in which it was held that "an Appellate Authority must examine the facts of each case and determine as to whether or not any deposit of the amounts demanded was called for as a condition for hearing of the appeal on merits. In case such an order is passed, the Collector would be competent to dismiss the appeal on account of disobedience and noncompliance of his order." In the instant case, it was verbally communicated to the learned counsel that since the appellant did not have any case on merit, the requirement of deposit of the adjudged amount of penalty could not be dispensed with. It is, however, reiterated that the goods imported in the instant case had been unlawfully allowed to be removed from the port premises, on the strength of take/forged documents and the Exchequer was defrauded of its legitimate revenue to the tune of millions of rupees: since description/specifications of the unlawfully removed goods could not be ascertained the exact defrauded amount could not be determined. The instant case constitutes part of the mega scam which is under investigation at the senior most level of the FBR on the specific directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Initial investigation, conducted at the highest level of FBR, concluded that hundreds of containers had been illegally removed from the QICT premises with active connivance of the senior level employees of the appellant. It has also been admitted by the appellant that two of his employees (Allah Baksh and Nisar Ahmed) had connived in unlawful removal of the instant container from the port. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the fake Goods Declaration on the basis of which the container was unlawfully allowed to be removed from the port premises did not contain even such basic information as IGM number, Index number, machine number of the consignment sought to be cleared. Therefore, the appellant was in full and guilty knowledge that the documents filed for clearance of the goods were fake. Had the top management of the appellant company not been itself involved, it would certainly have handed over its criminal employees to the Customs department instead of providing them opportunity to disappear abroad. It, therefore, stands established beyond any shadow of doubt that various tiers of the appellant company were criminally involved in defrauding the Exchequer of its legitimate revenue of millions of rupees by way of actively conniving in removal of the goods imported in this case. Therefore, the reasons put forward for waiver of the requirement of deposit of the penalties of Rs.2.0 million imposed on the appellant are not convincing because the appellant hardly has any case on merit. In such a situation, I am of the considered view that dispensing with the requirement of deposit of the aforesaid stipulated under section 195-B of the Act, would cause hardship to the Exchequer. Therefore, I reject the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of section 195-B of the Act.

Hence these appeals, inter alia, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeals filed by the appellants, who prayed that the appeals be accepted and impugned orders, passed by the forum below, be set aside.

10.Conversely, the Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the department, not only controverted the arguments advanced by the appellants but also supported the impugned orders and prayed for the dismissal of appeals.

11.Arguments heard, record perused.

12.The main thrust of learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants was that the Collector Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the amount of evaded duty and taxes was not deposited as required under section 195-B of the Customs Act, 1969 and the Collector Appeals did not discuss the merit of the case. They also contended that the show-cause notice was time barred which fact was not considered. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants also argued on the technical aspects of impugned order. They further contended that terminal operator was not responsible for the above offences which were in fact committed by the Customs staff who were then on duty.

13.Before discussing further, we go through the duties, responsibilities and functions of the terminal operators as provided under the law:--

"The Terminal Operator shall have the following Rights and obligations under PACCS:

(a)Safe Custody of Cargo/ Goods and Containers:

(i)The Terminal Operator is obligated to ensure the safe custody of all goods, cargo and containers received from a vessel or from the shipper's truck and to ensure that the goods, cargo and containers are not tampered with in any manner whatsoever and that the container seals are not removed or replaced in any manner whatsoever.

(c)Entry and Exit Control:

(i)The Terminal Operator shall control all entry and exit points at the terminal and shall not permit or exit of any goods, vehicle or person from the terminal except through the designated entry and exit points, however, the Terminal Operator may change or modify or add additional entry and exit points by informing the Collector in writing at least fifteen days in advance or such change, modifications or addition, whereupon, the Collector may allow movement of cargo and personnel from such modified or additional exit or entry points after verification by technical team.

(ii)The Terminal Operator shall not permit entry or exit of any goods, from or to the technical unless so authorized electronically by PACCS.

(iii)The Terminal Operator shall have complete liabilities for any breakage, theft or pilferage of any goods from the terminal where against the customs authorities shall not accept any liability for such events."

14.In these cases, the Terminal Operator not only violated the customs laws and rules but they are also guilty of gross violation of PACCS Rules which provide that the terminal operator shall not permit entry or exit of any goods unless they are authorized to do so by the PACCS Electronically. The containers were allowed. To exit on fake GDs, notwithstanding that the terminal operators were having the knowledge that the GDs do not bear the machine numbers/index numbers/IGM numbers, etc, and thus deprive the state from a huge exchequer just for their personal and associates illegal gains. It all happened in league with the importers, clearing agents and the staff on duty. The staff of QICT is equally involved with others, who issued get passes and allowed the illegal exit of consignments.

15.So far as the cases of importers are concerned, the shipping companies record highlight that containers were illegally removed during the period 2006-2008 but till today, the importers have not lodged any complaint about the missing of their goods or non-arrival of their consignment. If otherwise, the consignment of any importer had been lost, the consignee would have initiated civil as well as criminal proceedings against all the concerned.

16.Record further highlights that the QICT own record confirms that the containers were 'gate out' without obtaining prescribed permission (on-line message) in terms of sections 155-D and 155-E of the Act which fully establish that the terminal operators in league with the importers/consignee, clearing agents and other staff then on duty played active role in the removal of the containers from the port area.

17.The objection of appellants side about the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under Section 195-B of the Customs Act, 1969 is not sustainable. The learned Collector has rightly intercepted Section 195-B of the Customs Act, 1969 which is reproduced hereunder:-

"195-B Deposit, pending appeal of duty demanded or penalty levied.---Where, in any appeal under this Chapter, the decision or order appealed against relates to any duty demanded in respect of goods which are not under the control of the customs authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the proper officer the duty demanded or the penalty levied.

[Provided that where in any particular case the Collector (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Collector (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as he, or it, may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of revenue.]

[Provided further that an order dispensing with such deposit shall, without effecting the appeal, cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months following the day on which it is made unless the appeal is finally decided earlier and nothing in the order dispensing with such deposit which as ceased to have effect shall debar the appropriate officer to recover the amount of the duty demanded or penalty levied.]"

18.The facts of the case in hand are that on fake documents hundreds of containers loaded with imported goods involving duty and taxes of millions of rupees were allowed to be clandestinely removed from the port premises by the terminal operators in active connivance of importers, clearing agents and other staff then present on duty. Further interesting aspect of this case is that no one denies the series of occurrences, i.e. illegal removal of containers from port area on the basis of forged GDs but simply everyone tries to shift the burden of guilt on the other. In the peculiar circumstances, the Collector Customs (Appeals) had rightly brought in operation the provisions of section 195-B of the Customs Act, 1969.

19.The objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in relation to the show-cause notice is also not sustainable in the eyes of law because limitation does not run in cases of fiscal fraud. In the instant case which is of a peculiar nature and after disclosure of offence, the matter was interrogated by the authorities. A number of departments including foreign shipment companies were contacted for verification purposes. The conduct of accused persons also remained non-cooperative, causing the delay in issuance of show-cause notice which is not fatal.

20.The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeals are without merit. The guilt of appellants is fully proved without any shadow of doubt. No interference is called for. All the appeals are dismissed.

21.Announced.

22.Parties may be informed accordingly.

HBT/133/Tax(Trib.)Appeals dismissed.