COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS KARACHI VS HAJI ISMAIL CO., 2015 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 2642 (2015)

(Against the judgment dated 2-4-2008 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in Spl. Customs Appeals Nos. 148 to 156 of 2001)

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

----S. 32---Import of consignment---Documentary evidence, lack of---Bill of lading---Appellate Tribunal rightly concluded that original documents such as bill of lading etc. were not provided to the Customs authorities by the importers; that importers provided photocopies of bill of lading, wherein the addresses of consignors/ consignees had been struck out with a marker with the result that co-relation between the bills of lading and the consignment under dispute could not be ascertained; that bills of lading which were of subsequent dates, had shown consignments exported from country "K" prior to the issuance of bills of lading; that importers had also failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the containers carrying the goods with the seal intact were exported from country "K" to country "J"---Conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal were proper and consistent with the record---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

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

----Ss. 194B & 196---Reference to High Court---Scope---Appellate Tribunal---Factual aspects of a case determined by the Appellate Tribunal, interference in---Appellate Tribunal was the forum meant for determining factual aspects of the case---High Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction under S. 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, was not free to embark upon an unfettered inquiry into factual aspects of the case which had been properly considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal.

Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.

Muhammad Waqar Rana, Additional AGP on Court Notice.

Muhammad Saleem Thepdawala, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th April, 2015.

ORDER

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---These appeals have been filed by the Collector of Customs, Karachi to impugn the judgment of the High Court dated 2-4-2008 whereby Special Customs Appeals Nos.148 to 156 of 2001 filed by the respondents were allowed and as a consequence, the findings of the Appellate Tribunal and the findings in the Order in Original were reversed.

2. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment rendered by the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal has made a factual determination to the effect firstly, that original documents such as bills of lading etc. were not provided to the Customs by the respondents/importers. It has also been held that in the photocopies which were provided by the respondents, the addresses of consignors/ consignees had been struck out with a marker with the result that co-relation between the bills of lading and the consignment under dispute could not be ascertained. In addition to the aforesaid, it has been factually determined that the bills of lading which were of subsequent dates, had shown consignments exported from Korea prior to the issuance of the bills of lading. The respondents/importers had also failed to produce the documentary evidence to show that the containers carrying the goods with the seal intact were exported to Korea from Japan. Through proper and cogent reasoning, it has been held by the Tribunal that the respondents had produced the first sector bill of lading showing that the same container with its seal intact as in the second sector bill of lading was shifted from Korea.

3. The learned counsel representing the respondents argued with a lot of vehemence that the original documents such as bill of lading, etc. had been handed over by the respondents/importers to the Customs functionaries. This submission, however, is not borne out from the record. Firstly, we note that there is no document or exchange of correspondence which would support this submission. More importantly, however, even in the replies given by the respondents to the show cause notices issued to them, no such assertion has been made. We, therefore, are not in any doubt that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal were proper and consistent with the record.

4. Having gone through the impugned judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of the High Court, we find that the aforesaid aspects of the case have not been taken into account and dealt with. There is nothing in the impugned judgment which would justify disregard of the cogent reasoning and the factual determination made by the Tribunal. Moreover, it is the Tribunal which is the forum meant for determining factual aspects of the case such as the above. The High Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction under section 196 of the Customs Act, is not free to embark upon an unfettered inquiry into factual aspects which have been properly considered and decided by the Tribunal.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow these appeals. As a consequence, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the findings recorded in the order-in-original and in the judgment of the Tribunal, stands restored.

MWA/C-6/SCAppeal allowed.