KING ENTERPRISES, KARACHI VS The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KARACHI, 2017 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 2490 (2016)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 25 & 32---S.R.O. No. 659(I)/2007, dated 30-6-2007---Import of goods---Determination of customs value---Untrue statement, error etc.---Consignment containing glassware crockery, kitchenware, was imported by the importer under different P.C.T. Headings and claimed benefit of S.R.O. No.659(I)/2007, dated 30-6-2007---Hotpot was classified by the Appraisement Collectorate under P.C.T. Heading 1924.1000 instead of P.C.T. Heading 9617.0020 filed in Goods Declaration by the importer---Importer vide order-in-original, was directed to deposit the assessed amount of duty and taxes, beside personal penalty of Rs.10,000 was also imposed on the importer---Appeal filed by importer against order-in-original had been dismissed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals)---Validity---Importer's four consignments were assessed as per Classification Committee Ruling, because those were cleared after issuance of ruling; while the remaining consignments were cleared much before the ruling applied---Nothing was mentioned in the ruling that same would be applicable retrospectively or already cleared consignments---Any ruling, rules/regulations or notification, could not affect the earlier transaction concluded before issuance of the same and would have prospective effect---Present was not the case of wrong Goods Declaration or mis-declaration of consignment; also no fraud or collusion or mis-representation was alleged; in such an eventuality, the Adjudicating Officer should have been conscious enough to save the interest of taxpayer and decide the matter judiciously, fairly and strictly in accordance with law---Forums below had failed to properly appreciate the legal position to secure the rights accrued to the importer before issuance of ruling was applied giving retrospective effect---Orders passed by adjudicating authorities were patently illegal, unfair and void ab initio and were set aside in circumstances.

M.H. Awan for Appellant.

Muhammad Akram, A.O. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th November, 2016.

ORDER

JUSTICE (R) MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER JUDICIAL-I.---This single order will dispose of Customs Appeals Nos.K-1567 to 1572 of 2015 filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeals Nos.10685 to 10690/2015, dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Collector of Customs, (Appeals), Karachi as common question of law and facts involved are same and disposed of through single order.

2.Briefly stated, facts of case are that appellant imported a consignment containing Glassware Crockery, Kitchenware (Hot Pot), etc. under different PCT headings and claimed benefit of SRO 659(I)/2007 dated 30.06.2007 for FTA out of imported items. The goods hotpot was classified by Appraisement Collectorate under PCT heading 3924.1000 instead of PCT heading 9617.0020 filed in the GD by importer. Show cause notice was issued and after adjudication, vide Order-in-Original dated 24.09.2013 the appellants were directed to deposit the assessed amount of duty and taxes, beside personal penalty of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed. Feeling dissatisfied, six appeals were filed before Collector of Customs (Appeals) and through impugned order the same was dismissed, hence the present appeal.

3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before Collector of Customs (Appeals) six appeals were filed and instead of separate judgment/orders, single order was passed which was made applicable (mutatis mutandis) to the other appeals in violation of Hon'ble High Court of Sindh judgment passed in M/s. Pak Telephone Cable Ltd case. He further contended that judgment cited for condonation of delay passed by the Apex Court was not considered while passing the impugned order. Lastly, argued that the application of PCT Committee ruling dated 21.12.2012 was wrongly applied as all the consignments were cleared much before issuance of PCT Committee ruling dated 21.12.2012.

4.Conversally, the learned Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of department contended that PCT heading was not correctly mentioned in the GD with regard to single item (hotpot) under classification committee ruling dated 21.12.2012. The objection raised, duty and taxes and penalty imposed was in accordance with law.

5.Perusal of record reveals that appellant's four consignments were assessed as per Classification Committee Ruling because they were cleared after the issuance of ruling, while the remaining consignments were cleared much before the Ruling applied. There is nothing mentioned in the Ruling that it would be applicable retrospectively or already cleared consignments.

6.It is well settled law that any Ruling, Rules/Regulation or Notification cannot effect the earlier transition concluded before issuance of the same and would have prospective effect. The present is not the case of wrong GD or mis-declaration of consignment and also no allegation of fraud or collusion or mis-representation is alleged. In that eventuality, the Adjudicating Officer should have to be conscious enough to save the interest of tax payers and decide the matter judiciously, fairly and strictly in accordance with law. The learned forums below failed to properly appreciate the legal position to secure the rig-hts accrued to the appellants before issuance of ruling, applied by them, giving retrospective effect. Thus order passed are patently illegal, unfair and ab-initio void.

8(sic) In view of what has been observed above, this appeal and connected appeals bearing Nos. K-1568/2015, K-1569/2015, K-1570/ 2015, K-1571/2015 and K-1572/2015 are allowed and impugned orders passed by the learned forum below are set aside.

9.Announced.

HBT/9/Tax(Trib.) Appeal allowed.