SHAKEEL BROTHERS AND YOUSUF AYUB, KARACHI VS COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, ADJUDICATION, QUETTA, 2017 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 2217 (2017)

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

----Ss. 2(s), 16, 168, 177 & 186---SRO No.118(I)/83, dated 12-2-83---S.R.O. No.486(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007---"Smuggling"---Detention and seizure of goods---Jurisdiction---Appellant after buying 4875 Kgs. betal nuts, transported same through Goods Forwarding Agency by container---Officials of Directorate General of Customs intercepted the trailer and detained the same under S.186 of the Customs Act, 1969 and seized the goods under S.168 of the Customs Act, 1969 and framed contravention report---Functionaries of Directorate General had been appointed "Officers of customs" in terms of S.3-A of the Customs Act, 1969 and they derived powers for functioning through S.R.O. 486(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007---Said Notification/SRO, nowhere delegated powers to the Customs officials under Ss.2(s) & 177 of the Customs Act, 1969 which expressed the definition of word "smuggle" and "restriction on possession of goods in certain areas"---In the absence of availability of powers, the functionaries of Customs Directorate were barred by law to exercise powers not vested with them---Neither the Customs Act, 1969, nor any notification empowered the said functionaries of Customs Directorate to either intercept or detain any goods transported by any person through public carrier within the territory of Pakistan, with the exception of area expressed in S.177 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with SRO No.118(I)/83, dated 12-2-83---Customs officials had stretched their powers beyond the provision of Customs Act, 1969 and SRO No.486(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007, which was not permitted---Interception of the vehicle and detention of loaded goods and demand of import/purchase documents of the transported goods from the driver or the shipper of the goods, without power/ jurisdiction, was coram non judice---Transporting of the goods by the appellant through public carrier, did not fall within the meaning of "smuggling" and not the goods as "smuggled" through any stretch of imagination---Order accordingly.

Case-law referred.

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

----Ss. 2(s), 16, 177 & 187---SRO No.566(I)/2005, dated 6-6-2005---S.R.O. No. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009---S.R.O. No.118(I)/83, dated 12-2-1983---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117 & 121---"Smuggling"---Burden of proof---Goods/betel nuts were seized from National Highway during transportation from Karachi to Lahore---Betel nuts were lawfully imported and were purchased by the appellant for the purpose of business; which was not restricted under provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Said item could not be either intercepted or detained---Container or vehicle through which the appellant was transporting goods, was having no hidden or false cavities made or artificially made; instead at the hind of vehicle openly and due to the said reason the Customs officials released the vehicle without any hitch or hindrance---Such was ample proof that neither the appellant was involved in any type of "smuggling" nor the goods transported by him were "smuggled goods", rendering the interception of the vehicle and detention---Seizure of the goods was nullity in law---If the item alleged to be "smuggled" was freely available in the open market and the import of such goods were not banned in the country, presumption would be that the goods in question were lawfully brought in the country, unless contrary was shown---Appellant had discharged the burden of proof laid upon him under S.187 of the Customs Act, 1969---Customs officials had failed to prove the charge of "smuggling" or transportation of "smuggled goods" under Arts. 117 & 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Seizure notice and connected proceedings which were infested with patent illegalities, were held to be null and void---Order-in-original based on such proceedings were also ab initio, null and void, and was set aside---Appeal was accordingly allowed with the direction to the department to deliver the goods to the appellant forthwith, without hitch and hindrance.

Case-law referred.

Asim Munir Bajwa for Appellant.

Wilayat Ali, Senior Superintendent for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th April, 2016.

JUDGMENT

TAHIR ZIA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II).---Through this order, I intend to dispose off Appeal No. H-413/2015 directed against the Order-in-Original No. 512/2014 dated 24.12.2014 passed by Collector of Customs, (Adjudication) Quetta at Hyderabad.

2.Brief, facts of the case are that the Appellant after buying 4875 kgs betel nuts packed in 75 bags of Indonesia Origin from Messrs Anees and Brothers, Karachi sold that to Mr. Yousuf Ayub son of Muhammad Yaqoob, House No. 132, Gali No. M-5, Near Railway Station, Mohalla Fateh Shah, Lahore and transported the bags through Raftaar Goods Forwarding Agency, Karachi against bilty No. 1658 dated 16.06.2014, which were loaded on container of trailer bearing registration No. Z-7527, On way to Lahore, the subordinate of Superintendent of Directorate General of I&I-FBR, Range Office Sukker (here-in-after to be referred as respondent No. 2. Intercepted that at Rohri Bypass Rohari, at about 18:30 and after cursory checking found that it has been loaded with the foreign origin goods. Resultant, driver of the truck namely Muhammad Ijaz S/o Muhammad Ashiq R/o Chak Loharan, Tehsil Ahmed Pur, District Bhawalpur was asked for the legal import documents, instead he produced bunch of bilties issued by M/s. Raftaar Goods Forwarding Agencies, S.F Unit No. 3, Near Traffic Police Chowki, Mohajir Camp, Karachi. Since, it was not possible to check it thoroughly on the spot, the container was brought to Range Office, Sukker for examination/ verification. After checking in the presence of two mushirs and the driver, unloaded the foreign origin goods, due to non presentation of legal documents, regarding lawful possession of the goods, detained those under Section 186 of the Customs Act, 1969 (here-in-after to be referred as Act) and container/trailor was allowed to proceed to his journey along with other non offending goods to its destination. Upon having knowledge the appellant contacted the seller and asked for the legal import documents, which due to inadvertence supplied the copy of GD KEPW-HC-54980 dated 04.11.2013 and connected import documents, which appellant presented to the subordinate of respondent No. 2. The supplier /seller subsequently realized his inadvertent mistake and supplied the correct GD and connected import documents through which the sold betel nuts were imported, namely invoice No. VJL-028/2014 dated 08.03.2014 cash payment receipt dated 09.04.2014 and 16.07.2014 and GD No. KEPW-HC-130599 dated 09.04.2014 and Sales Tax Invoices, which he furnished with the subordinates of respondent No. 2 but of no avail as they refused to condone the inadvertent act of the seller and termed the erroneous submitted GD and documents as valid, which were obviously not answering the description and quantity of the transported betel nuts, seized the goods under the provision of Section 168(1) of the Act and framed contravention report and forwarded to Collector of Customs, Adjudication-Quetta, who referred that to the competent authority defined in section 179 of the Act. Upon receipt of contravention report respondent No. 1 issued show-cause notice dated 12.08.2014, with the allegation that the appellant is guilty of smuggling betel nuts of foreign origin as defined in Section 2(s) and Section 16 of the Act sections 3(1), 3 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 punishable under clause (90) of Section 156(1) of the Act. The appellant appeared for hearing and submitted the relevant documents previously submitted with the subordinate of respondent No. 2, which confirmed the import of the betel nuts by M/s. Anees and Sons, Karachi, who subsequently sold to the appellant. The respondent No. 2 disagreed with the submission of the appellant and passed order dated 24.12.2014 through which he ordered confiscation of betel nut. Para (ii) of para 19 is relevant, which is reproduced here-in-under:--

"(ii) Goods mentioned at para-13, Serial No. (ii)(Prime Betel Nuts) of the Table of the Order

Regarding the seized betel nuts a GD bearing No. KAPW-HC-130599 dated 09.04.2014 cleared by Messrs Anees and Sons, Karachi was submitted whereby 87.500 kg (net weight of betel nut were imported from Indonesia. The Sales Invoice issued by Messrs Anees and Sons, Karachi to subsequent sales to Mr. Ayub resident of Lahore having sales tax registration No. 3520228680901 were submitted all tax invoices have been issued for quantity of 05 Bags of betel nut each for identical sale price of Rs.42.416. These tax invoices have been issued on consecutive dates an attempt has been made to keep a value of goods below Rs. 50,000/- beside summary of sales record as shown in sales tax return for the tax period of June 2014 has not been submitted by the respondent dubious sales tax invoices were submitted. Hence no direct evidence was established for goods imported by Messrs Anees and Sons, Karachi and the goods seized in the instant case. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disagree with the contention of the Seizing Agency that the seized 75 bags of the betel nuts (made in Indonesia) were brought into the country in violation of sections 2(s) and 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. Consequent the seized 75 bags betel nuts (made in Indonesia) are confiscated out-rightly in terms of under clause (90) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 for violation of sections 2(s) and 16 of Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(1) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950."

3.The appellant filed the appeal on the basis of grounds enumerated therein. No cross objection under subsection (4) of section 194A has been filed within the stipulated period of 30 days by the respondent No. 2 himself or through his subordinate, instead comments were filed by Deputy Director dated nil, which are placed on record for perusal and consideration.

4.Heard, case record perused. The subordinates of respondent No. 2 are indeed appointed "Officer of Customs" in terms of Section 3A of the Customs Act, 1969 and they drive powers for functioning through S.R.O. 486(I)/2007 dated 09.06.2007. The said SRO no where delegate powers to the Officials of respondent No. 2 under Section 2(s) and Section 177 of the Act, which express the definition of word smuggle and "restriction on possession of goods in certain areas". In the absence of availability of powers under these two sections, the subordinates of respondent No. 2 are barred by law to exercise powers not vested with it. Similarly, the Act, contains nor any notification is in field empowering the subordinates of respondent No. 2 to either intercept or detain any goods transported by any person through public carrier within the territory of Pakistan with the exception of area expressed in Section 177 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with S.R.O. 188(I)/83 dated 12.02.83 nor in regards to demand of import or purchase documents either from the driver of the carrier or from the owner of the transported goods through the public carrier. The subordinates of respondent No. 2 stretched their powers beyond the provision of the Act, and S.R.O. 486(I)/2007 dated 09.06.2007, which is not permitted under law. Rendering their act of intercepting the vehicle and detaining the loaded goods and demand of import/purchase documents of the transported goods from the driver or the shipper of the goods without power/ jurisdiction, hence coram non judice as held by Superior Judicial Fora in reported judgments Major Syed Walayat Shah v. Muzaffar Khan and 2 others (PLD 1971 SC 184), Omer and Company v. Controller of Customs, (Valuation): (1992 ALD 449 (1) Karachi AAA Steel Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise Collectorate of Sales Tax (2004 PTD 624), PLD 1976 Supreme Court 514 Ali Muhammad v. Hussain Buksh and others and PLD 2001 Supreme Court 514 Land Acquisition Collector, Noshehra and others v. Sarfraz Khan and others, S.T.A. 444/03, S.T.A. 465/07, PTCL 2008 CL. 37(sic) Director, Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigations and others v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636, 2010 PTD 465; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2158, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1010, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1680 and 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2086.

5.For analyzing the charge of smuggling as leveled in the show-cause notice, it is beneficial to reproduce verbatim of sections 2(s) and 177 of the Act and S.R.O. 118(I)/83 dated 12.02.1983 for better understanding the word smuggle and for specified area for leveling the charge of smuggling:--

2(s) "Smuggle" means to bring into or take out of Pakistan in breech of any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force, or evading payment of customs duties or taxes leviable thereon,

(i)Gold bullion, silver bullion, platinum, palladium, radium, precious stones, antiques, currency, narcotics and narcotic and psychotropic substances; or

(ii)Manufactures of gold or silver or platinum or palladium or radium or precious stones, and any other goods notified by the Federal Government in the official Gazette, which, in each case, exceed [one hundred and] [fifty thousand rupees] in value or

(iii)Any goods by any route other than a route declared under section 9 or 10 or from any place other than a customs station and includes an attempt, abetment or connivance of so bringing in or taking out of such goods; and all cognate words and expressions shall be construed accordingly.]

Section 177 Restriction on the possession of goods in certain areas:---(i) This section shall apply to such areas adjacent to the frontier of Pakistan as may, from time to time, be notified by the Board in the official Gazette.

(2) In any area to which this section for the time being applies, no person shall have in his possession or control any such goods or class of goods in excess of such quantity or value as may from time to time be notified by the (Federal Government) or, with the previous approval of the (Federal Government) by the Provincial Government, in the official Gazette, except under a permit granted by the Government which issued the notification in respect of the particular goods or class of goods or by an officer authorized by such Government.

Notification of the Frontier Border area under Section 177

Notification No. SRO 118(I)/83 dated 12th February, 1983 - In exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) of section 177 of the Customs Act, 1969 (VI of 1969) and in supersession of its Notification No. S.R.O 309(I)/70 dated 22.12.1970 the Central Board of Revenue is pleased to notify the area 5 mile adjacent to the Frontier with India and Iran to be the area to which the said section shall apply.

That after examining the Section 2(s), it is observed that the definition of 2(s) can be applied only if both of two forms are fulfilled. Each of this form have two "limbs" and the form applied if either of its limbs is applicable, These position are narrated here-in-below:

(a)Form (A): The impugned goods should be brought into or taken out of Pakistan either (i) in breech of any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force, or (ii) by evading payment of customs duty and other taxes leviable thereon ; and

(b)Form (B) : The impugned goods should be (i) either those specifically listed in the definition, i.e. gold bullion, platinum, radium, etc or be notified by the Federal Government in the official Gazette, or (ii) be brought into or taken out of Pakistan by a route other than one declared under section 9 or 10 or from a place other than a customs -station.

This Tribunal is of the view that unless both forms (A) & (B) applied the issue does not fall within the definition of "smuggle" and there can be therefore neither any smuggling of the goods nor can they be held to be "smuggled goods". For the instant case it is appropriate to consider Form (B) in detail. As far as first limb is concerned none of the goods specifically mentioned in the definition are relevant present case, therefore for Form (B) to apply, it must be shown that either goods transported have been notified by the Federal Government for the purpose of Section 2(s) (the first limb), or (the second limb) the goods in question were brought into Pakistan via route other than one declared in Section 9 or 10 of the Act, or from a place other than a Customs-Station, each of the two limbs of course applied to its own footing i.e., the applicability of one is not dependent on the existence, continuance or occurrence of the other. Obviously, if there is no notification in relation to the goods transported, then the first limb did not apply and it was only the second limb of form "B" that could apply. The importance of this point can be appreciated by looking at it in reverse. If there is no notification in the field (no application of the first limb), and goods are brought into Pakistan by a route declared under sections 9 and 10 and through a customs-station i.e., the second limb also does not apply) then form "B" would not apply in such a situation, even though there may be an evasion of customs duty and other taxes or breech of any restriction or prohibition (i.e., form (A) applies ). The matter would not come within the ambit of 2(s) in other words, there would be no smuggling of goods, which could not therefore be regarded as "smuggled goods". Another aspect has to be look into in the light of section 177 of the Custom Act, 1969 and SRO 118(I)/83 dated 12.02.1983, which is irrelevant and not applicable in the instant case by virtue of the fact that the goods intercepted and detained were not transported by the appellant within 5 miles of India and Iran Borders, instead from Rohri Bypass at National High Way during transportation from Karachi to Lahore. Resultant, the transporting of the goods by the appellant through public carrier does not falls within the meaning of "smuggling" and not the goods as "smuggled" through any stretch of imagination.

The submission made here-in-above is not merely an academic exercise or a consideration of sections 2(s), 177 and Notification No. 118(I)/83 in the abstract, but a matter of great practical importance the notification presently in field with regard to section 2(s) is S.R.O. 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005. This notification no doubt contains betel nuts, but that is not prone to smuggling through any stretch of imagination, due to the fact that these are freely importable without any restriction and 95% is imported from "Indonesia" and 5% from "Thailand, Malaysia and Srilanka" not from India. Whereas, it is not produced in "Afghanistan or Iran", beside their import is not permitted in these countries, which dilute the question of smuggling from these countries. This is not the case in the instant case as the goods were seized from National Highway during transportation from Karachi to Lahore, meaning thereby that the betel nuts were lawfully legally imported and were purchased by the appellant for the purpose of business, which is not restricted under any provision of the Act. Resultant, those cannot be either intercepted or detained as held by Division Bench of High Court in the case reported as PLD 1975 Karachi 482 and PLD 1978 Kar. 774 and 1981 PCr.LJ 66, 1981 PCr.LJ 986, 1984 PCr.LJ 3096(2), 1987 Cr.LJ 325, 1988 PCr.LJ 435 and Customs Order-in-Appeal No. 26/2005 dated 09.01.2006 (Although the goods involved there were motor vehicle, betel nuts and some other goods, the principle is the same)

6.In addition to the above discussed two forms, the Federal Government carved yet another form vide S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 extending the definition of smuggling and smuggled goods, i.e. "if those were transported through lawfully registered conveyance including packages and containers carrying" goods in false cavities or been used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offending goods under clause (s) of section 2 of the Act, (IV of 1969)". The container or vehicle through which the appellant was transporting goods was having no hidden or false cavities made for the time being or artificially made, instead at the hind of vehicle openly and due to the said reason the official of the respondent No. 2 released the vehicle without any hitch or hindrance. This is ample to prove that neither the appellant was involved in any type of smuggling nor the goods transported by him are "smuggled goods". Rendering the intercepting of the vehicle and detention and seizure of the goods nullity to law as held by the Tribunal in H-185/2009 Noor Muhammad son of Muhammad Gul, Imtiaz Ali son of Pir Buksh v. Deputy Collector of Customs, (Adjudication) Hyderabad and Lahore High Court reported judgment 2010 PTD 2015 Collector of Customs v. Rehmat Afridi.

7.One has to look into the vital fact that as to whether the goods transported by the appellant were freely available in the open market without any restriction, in case those are available then such goods does not fall within the degree of smuggled as defined in Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 Notification No. 118(I)/83 dated 12.02.1983, S.R.O. 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 and are to be presumed to have been duty paid as held by Supreme Court of Pakistan in reported judgment 1995 SCMR 387 Sikandar A. Karim v. The State. The Double Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprised of Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui and Justice Mukhtiar Ahmed Junejo held in unambiguous term that "If the item alleged to be smuggled by the prosecution were freely available in the open market and the import of such goods were not banned in the country, presumption could arrive that the goods in question were lawfully brought in the country unless contrary was shown". As per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Appellate Tribunal in Customs Appeals Nos. 339/2000 Mr. Muhammad Hanif v. The State and 301/2003 Nasser Ahmed v. Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Excise, Quetta held that "to produce legal import documents is nothing but to put undue pressure on the business community inspite of the fact that it has been observed number of times by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the goods which are freely available in the market are presumed to be have been legally imported and duty paid. Even otherwise no reasonable ground has been given in the order-in-original that even for the sake of arguments, it is taken that the receipt produced by the appellant and issued by Saifullah Khan have no legal status then also it cannot be concluded that the said transaction was illegal, making way to call upon appellant to produce import documents.

8.The appellant submitted copies of respective import documents, relevant GD and Sales tax Invoices bearing No. 537 dated 02.06.2014, 538 dated 03.06.2014, 539 dated 04.06.2014, 541 dated 05.06.2014, 542 dated 06.06.2014, 543 dated 07.06.2014, 544 dated 09.06.2014, 545 dated 10.06.2014, 577 dated 11.06.2014, 587 dated 12.06.2014, 588 dated 13.06.2014 589 dated 13.06.2014, 590 dated 14.06.2014, 591 dated 16.06.2014 and 592 dated 16.06.2014 and undertaking for the seller dated 10.09.2014 in regards to committed mistake of supplying erroneous GD to the appellant. The subordinate of the respondent No. 2 failed to controvert the veracity of those even in the comments or during the course of hearing, which amounts to admission that the documents so submitted by the appellant are correct and valid. Therefore, the appellant discharged the burden of proof laid upon him under section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the subordinate of respondent No. 2 failed to prove the charge of "smuggling " or transportation of "smuggled goods". To the contrary, the respondent No. 2 despite mandated under Articles 117 and 121 of Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984) and umpteenth reported judgment, failed to discharge burden of proof as the same stood shifted on their shoulders, as it is on the person leveling the allegation to proof those. The Tribunal feels appropriate to reproduce herein below the verbatim of reported judgment PLD 1996 Karachi 68 and 2012 PTD 428, wherein their lordship of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh held that:--

"For every offence for which the accused is charged under the Customs Act he shall have to disprove the allegation of the Customs Authorities is entirely without any obligation upon the Customs Department to adduce evidence, it would amount to affording unfettered, naked and arbitrary discretion to the authorities who may at their sweet will make out false cases against importers without the need of proving the sanctity of their actions. Such cannot be the intention of Parliament while the Courts are under an obligation to place such construction on statues which would be beneficial to the widest extent and which would make the legislation operate fairly, justly and equitably and not unreasonably (see Mst. Zainab v. Kamal Khan (PLD 1990 SC 1051). This Court is also of the view that a construction is to be placed upon statutes which would minimize the discretion vested upon the executive authorities. As absolute power corrupts an interpretation fettering the discretion of the executive authority would be more in line with the principles of equity and justice. The issue regarding the applicability of section 187 is to be looked from another angle i.e. in case we were to hold that due to Section 187 the entire burden to dispute the entire case rest upon the accused alone. The executive authorities would be let loose and given a wide, naked and arbitrary discretion to operate without any guidelines which would then leave section 187 susceptible to a Constitutional challenge upon its vires on this score alone. By the interpretation as proposed above any redundancy or illegality would also be avoided."

9.It is also gathered from the order that the respondent No. 1 formed opinion that the seller issued invoices for 05 bags of betel nuts and on the rate of Rs. 42.416, for keeping the value of the goods below to Rs. 50,000.00 and were issued subsequent to detention/seizure, which according to him is not permitted under law, while adducing the said observation, he fell short to refer the respective provision of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, wherein any restriction to the said effect has been laid. He also lost sight of the fact that on import by a commercial importer 3% value addition tax is ought to be charged by the customs in addition to the leviable sales tax of 17%, which has been charged/paid by the MCC of Customs/appellant, validated from the annexed Goods Declaration, the said payment of additional sales tax is on sale. Even otherwise, the sales tax invoices under section 23 of the Sales Tax, 1990 has to be issued after sale of the goods, which the appellant informed the importer/seller, who issued those in the name of the appellant's buyers namely Mr. Yousuf Ayub. It is to be noted that the monitoring of payment of sales tax and additional tax rests with the Regional Tax Office of their respective jurisdiction, respondent are non entity in this regard after formation of Inland Services and availability of sections 30 and 30A in the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and sections 230 and 230A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Wherein, appointment of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, Inland Services and Directorate General of Withholding Taxes have been made by the Federal Government, which has been delegated powers under different sections of the Sales Tax, 1990 through S.R.O. No. 776(I)/2011 dated 19.08.2011 and under section 207 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2011 respectively. In the said sections none of the respondents figures anywhere, even otherwise the respondents have no mandate under any provision of the Act and S.R.O. 486(I)/2007 dated 09.06.2007 to scrutinize or dispute purchase and sale transaction of an business entity or a person. Resultant, the respondent No. 1 in this context abused his powers and needlessly disputed the veracity of the submitted invoices and adduced his opinion in the order being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I therefore, hold that opinion of respondent No.2 is of no legal effect and cannot be made basis for confiscation of the goods when those were lawfully legally imported and were transported from Karachi to Lahore through valid bilty.

10.In view of the foregoing the seizure notice and connected proceedings, which are infested with patent illegalities and are held to be null and void. As such Order-in-Original based on such proceedings are also ab-initio, null and void and are therefore, set aside. The subject appeal is accordingly allowed with the direction to deliver the goods to the appellant forthwith without let, hitch and hindrance.

HBT/19/Tax(Trib.) Appeal allowed.