USMAN VS The ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), PESHAWAR, 2018 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 2485 (2018)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 2(s), 16, 156 & 157---SRO No.1090(I)/2010, dated 1-12-2010---Smuggling of vehicle---Confiscation of vehicle---Appellant, having failed to produce valid registration and other legal documents in respect of vehicle in question, Additional Collector Customs confiscated vehicle, seized by F.C. troops---Appellant raised objection to the effect that seizure was conducted by "Subedar" of the FC under S.157 of the Customs Act, 1969, who was not authorized to seize the vehicle under said section in the light of S.R.O. No.1090(I)/2010, dated 1-12-2010---Objection of the appellant was not sustainable as the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for violation of Ss.2(s) & 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the appellant had not raised any objection at the time of show-cause notice---'Subedar' of FC Force was competent to seize the vehicle---Impugned order of confiscation passed by Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication), was upheld, in circumstances.

Ajoon Khan for Appellant.

Muhammad Azeem Superintendent, Customs Peshawar for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th January, 2018.

JUDGMENT

SYED SARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).---This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 09.09.2015 of the Additional Collector Custom-(1) Peshawar, whereby he confiscated vehicle Fielder Car, Chasis No. NZE121-0277669, Engine No. FE-1496 and Model 2003, seized by FC, troops of Khyber Rifle during routine Anti-smuggling duties at Bhigyari Check Post vide seizer report No.77/2015 dated 14.06.2015 from Usman son of Ali Khan (hereinafter called appellant).

2.I have heard Mr. Ajoon Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Muhammad Azeem Superintendent/DR, Customs (representative of the respondents) and gone through the record with their assistance.

3.Counsel of the appellant argued that the seizer was conducted by Subidar Habib Gul Afridi of the FC under section 157 of the Custom Act 1969, while under the law he was not authorized to seize the vehicle under section 157 of the Custom Act in the light of S.R.O. 1090(I)/2010 dated 01.12.2010. He further argued that Sections 2(s) and 16 of the Act are not mentioned in the seizer report.

4.Perusal of SRO 1090(I)/2010 dated 01.12.2010, reveals that officers of the Pakistan Rangers, Frontier Corps (Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa including FATA) operating within their respective jurisdictions as specified in column (1) of the Table below, were entrusted the functions of officers of Customs under the provisions of the said Act specified in column (2) of the said Table:---

5.Serial No. 02 of the table empowered an officer not below the rank of junior commissioned officer of respective jurisdiction to exercise the powers under sections 161 (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), 165 (I) and 166, of the Customs Act, 1969. Subidar is a Junior Commissioned Officer in the Armed Forces, and under section 161(3), he was competent to arrest/seized and to taken forthwith the seized vehicle before the nearest Officer of Custom, authorized by the Collector Customs to deal with such cases. In the recovery memo. it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle was seized under the provision of section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 for violation of sections 2 and 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(1) and (3) of the Imports and Exports of (Control) Act, 1950. The Additional Collector Customs issued show-cause notice on 03.08.2015 for violation of Section 2(s) and Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(1), (3) of the Imports and Exports of (Control) Act, 1950.

6.The case papers were submitted to the adjudication officer in terms of Section 179 of the Act. The Additional Collector Custom-1 Peshawar vide order dated 09.09.2015 confiscated the seized vehicle in terms of section 156(1) clauses (8) and (89) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1)(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The appellant was directed to produce valid registration and other legal documents in respect of the vehicle in question which he did not. The objection of the counsel of the appellant is not sustainable as the show-cause notice was issued for violation of section 2(s) and section 16 of the Customs Act, read with section 3(1)(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 and the appellant has not raised any objection at the time of the show-cause notice and Subidar was competent to seize/arrest the vehicle. In view of the above discussion, I dismiss this appeal and uphold the impugned order of the Additional Collector-I (Adjudication) Peshawar, dated 09.09.2015. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

HBT/5/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.