AARIJ STEEL CORPORATION, KARACHI VS The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KARACHI, 2018 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 2488 (2017)

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

----Ss. 16, 27-A, 32 & 79---SRO No.450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001---Mis-declaration of description of imported goods---Import of a consignment of re-meltable scrap, classifiable under PCT Heading 7204.4920 by declaring its value under S.79 of the Customs Act, 1969 was cleared---Said consignment was intercepted by Directorate General of Customs Intelligence and Investigation-FBR on the basis of a credible information---Authorities, on physical examination, noticed 49 old and used motor cycles/scooty in addition to re-meltable scrap, which did not appear to be bona fide scrap and were not importable---Show-cause notice was issued to the importer on the basis of contravention report---Adjudicating authority, could not concur with the defence plea of the importer and recorded order-in-original---Order-in-original was maintained by the appellate authority below---Validity---Objectionable parts of the consignment i.e. motor cycles/scooty, due to non-availability of rims/tyres alleged to be incomplete, yet had essential character of the complete finished article---Out of 49 old and used motor cycles/scooty, 48 motor cycles were usable after fixing rims and tyres, whereas remaining one scooty after replacement of broken body; could easily be used for original purpose---Said motor cycles/scooty, were serviceable in original form---Importer, in circumstances, could not plead that objectionable part of the consignment was bona fide scrap---Request of the importer for release of the subject part of the consignment after de-shaping/mutilation/ scraping on the cost of the importer, was declined on the score that once goods were confiscated, same became the property of Federal Government in accordance to S.182 of the Customs Act, 1969---Importer being no more owner of the subject property, was not entitled to the subject relief---Provisions of S.27-A of the Customs Act, 1969, was to be read and interpreted as expressed/phrased, which permitted mutilation or scraping of imported goods on the request of the importer, without any condition; whereas R.593 of the Customs Rules, 2001, changed the prime scope of S.27-A of the Customs Act, 1969 with the condition i.e. request was to be made before filing of goods declaration---Rules were subordinate to the statute and those were made for promotion of the Act---Said Rules could not to be employed to harass the taxpayer on the basis of technicalities instead of advancing the purpose for which those were framed---Provisions of S.27-A of the Customs Act, 1969 and R.593, to be adhered in letter and spirit and for the benefit of the taxpayer, by virtue of fact that those were directory in nature---Appellate Tribunal observed that request of the importer for mutilation/de-shaping of objectionable items, was to be allowed after filing of goods declaration by Adjudicating Collectorate or by Collector of Customs (Appeals)---Similar type of request was allowed at the level of adjudication and appeal---Facility allowed to someone and denied to other, was discrimination---Request of the importer was vouchsafed for release of the said confiscated goods after de-shaping/mutilation to the extent of small pieces useable as re-meltable scrap only in consonance of S. 27-A of the Customs Act, 1969 at the expenses of the importer and on payment of penalty of Rs. 50,000 in addition to payment of leviable duty and taxes---Order-in-original and order-in-appeal, were set aside, in circumstances.

Messrs Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others PLD 1971 SC 61 ref.

(b) Interpretation of statutes---

----Rules under a statute---Scope---Rules, which were merely sub-ordinate legislation could not override or provail upon the parent statute---When there was inconsistency between the rule and statute, the statute must prevail.

Messrs Nishat Mills v. Superintendent of Central Excise Circle 2 PLD 1989 SC 222 ref.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 25---Equality, doctrine of ---Doctrine of equality, as contained in Art.25 of the Constitution enshrined the golden rules of Islam, which stated that every citizen, no matter, how high-so-ever, must be accorded equal treatment with similarly situated persons---State could classify persons and object for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or objects within a class---Almost all legislation involved some kind of classification, whereby same people acquire rights or suffer disabilities; whereas other do not---What was prohibited under that principle, was legislation favouring some within a class and unduly burdening others---Basic rule for the exercise of such discretion and reasonable classification, was that all persons placed in similar circumstances must be treated alike and reasonable classification must be based on reasonable grounds in a given set of circumstances, but the same in any case, must not offend the spirit of Art.25 of the Constitution.

Aqeel Ahmed for Appellant.

Jehanzeb, I.O. and Khurrum Shahzad, I.O. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th December, 2017.

ORDER

GHULAM MUSTAFA MEMON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III).---This appeal calls in question propriety of order-in-appeal No.27/2016 dated 14.01.2016 recorded by the learned Collector Customs (Appeals), Karachi by which while not accepting defence plea of the appellant, dismissed the appeal preferred against the order-in-original SI/Misc/ 262/2015-VI dated 03.09.2015, authored by Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication-I), whereby established the charge of mis-declaration of description of items (subject matter of the adjudication), against the importer (appellant), being not importable items under Sr.No.8 of Part-I of Appendix-B of Import Policy Order, 2013-15 (in short IPO, 2013-15), therefore, guilty of offence punishable under clause (9) of section 156 of Customs Act, 1969 (in short "Act, 1969"), consequence whereupon, confiscated the contravening items details of which tabulated at Para-2 of the subject order, whereas allowed the remaining portion of consignment to be released on payment of leviable duty and taxes with warning to the appellant (importer) to remain careful in future.

2.The essential facts gave rise to the instant appeal lie within narrow orbit and may be briefly indicated that, the appellant (importer) imported a consignment of re-meltable scrap (waste and scrap of auto parts), classifiable under PCT heading 7204.4920, by declaring its value US $ 64122 vide IGM No.197/2015 dated 30.07.2015, Index No.1189 through GD Machine No.GMPW-HC-25122 dated 12.08.2015 under section 79 of the Customs Act, 1969 and got its clearance. On credible information, the said consignment was intercepted by the Directorate General of Customs Intelligence and Investigation-FBR. On physical examination noticed 49 in number, old and used motor cycles/scooty in addition to re-meltable scrap, which do not appear to be bona fide scrap. Description of the same referred as below:

(i)Two wheel motorcycle with engine, shock absorber, drum meter without tyre and rim, 110 cc (old and used) 04 in number.

(ii)Two wheel motorcycle with engine, shock absorber, drum meter, without tyre and rim, 250 cc (old and used) 02 in number.

(iii)Two wheel motorcycle with engine, shock absorber, drum meter, without tyre and rim, 70 cc (old and used) 09 in number.

(iv)Four wheel desert bike engine, chassis, shock absorber front, chain spcoket without rim and tyre (old and used) 13 in number.

(v)scooty with engine, broken body. Tyre and rim (old and used) 01 in number.

(vi)Four wheel desert bike with engine, broken body rim and tyre (old and used) 20 in number.

Indeed the aforementioned motor cycles/scooty in old and used condition under the garb of re-meltable scrap were not importable as per Sr.No.11 of Appendix-C of IPO, 2013-15. The subject mis-declaration pressed to service penal action under Section 16 of Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of the Import and Export Control Act, punishable under section 156 of the Act, 1969. Accordingly, on basis of the contravention report show-cause notice dated 02.09.2015 was issued to the appellant (importer). The subject show-cause notice was defended before the Adjudicating Authority while submitting written reply by the clearing agent of the appellant. The said authority could not concur with the defence plea of the appellant side and recorded order-in-original, indicated at caption. The appellant (importer) assailed the said order before Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi. The said appeal of the appellant failed on the score that the department representative produced letters two in number, dated 21.08.2015 and 24.08.2015 addressed by the appellant, whereby latter expressed no interest to take delivery of the disputed items therefore, according to the learned Collector (Appeals) that, once goods were confiscated, same become property of the Federal Government in terms of Section 182 of the Act, 1969, intrinsically, the request of the appellant / importer for release of the disputed goods after de-shaping on cost of the importer, was brush aside and order-in-original was maintained.

3.Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal for set aside/recall the subject order. On notice, department representative entered appearance and filed parawise comments in opposition to the appeal.

4.Significant to mention that, during proceedings of the appeal when advocate for the appellant hardly stressed for release of the confiscated items after mutilation / scrapping on the charges / expenses of the appellants (importer), the representative of the department gave suggestion for advancing written application in the said context to the department by the appellant (importer) and same would be met with the positive result in terms of Section 27-A of the Act, 1969. Although the appellant side on subject assurance of representative of the department submitted the application, yet the department (respondent) took summersalt and turned down the said application on the score that after filing of Goods Declaration (GD) benefit of Section 27-A of the Act, 1969, could not be extended in favour of the appellant (importer).

5.I have heard Mr. Aqeel Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant and Messrs Jehanzeb, I.O. and Khurram Saeed, I.O. for the respondents. With their valuable assistance have gone through the record as well as relevant provisions of law inconsonance of weighty precedents of the Hon'ble Superior Courts.

6.Indeed the appellant (importer) imported re-meltable scrap classifiable under PCT heading 7204.4920, as evident from the documents namely GD, invoices etc. and got its clearance. Subsequently on spy tip, the entire consignment was intercepted by Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation and on physical examination noticed Motor Cycle / Scooty old and used 49 in number, description of same given (supra) apart from other re-meltable scrap. According to the department former part of the consignment was not bona fide scrap.

7.Mr. Aqeel Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant sought much capital to the point that the consignment imported by the appellant consist of broken and damaged automobile parts and therefore, there can be no justification whatsoever for excluding motorcycle/scooty without tyres and rims 49 in number referred to above, from the re-meltable scrap while declaring as not bona fide scrap. He went on to state further that in Europen countries at the time of purchase of new vehicle, Insurance Company insured the same for the period of five years and after expiry of the said period approached to owner/purchaser with an option to purchase new one on the cost of insurance company and deliver the old to latter or retain the same for other period. When owner of the vehicle accepted former proposal then used/old vehicle delivered to insurance company while stamping two digits of chassis declared as scrap without any sort of damage to body and machinery, by the insurance company. Likewise, in Abu Dubai when new model of a vehicle came into the market, old one without any body or machinery damage disposed off as scrap in the stand still position. The aforementioned examples in respect of re-meltable scrap has been disputed by the learned representatives of the department on the score that only article which could not be used for the purpose other than waste and scrap can be classifiable as re-meltable scrap whereas in the instant case after fixing tyres and rims the subject old and used motor cycles / scooty would became functional and usable for original purpose. They further added that serviceable auto parts could not be classified as scrap.

8.There is no denial to the fact that the goods of the appellant were imported as re-meltable scrap, classifiable under PCT heading 7204 which refers to "Ferrous waste and scrap; re-melting scrap ingots of Iron or Steel". Whereas, its sub-heading 7204.4920 related to waste and scrap of auto parts. To meet the aforementioned plea of the learned advocate for the appellant; on first instance I would like to refer dictionary meaning of the scrap:

The word "scrap" has been defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary (Seventh Edition) as "rubbish, waste material of metal, iron, etc. metal collected for re-working; heap, collection of waste material". According to Collins Dictionary of the English Language (Second Edition) "Scrap" has been defined as "small pieces of some thing larger, fragment ... waste material or used articles especially metal, often collected and reprocessed . to discard as useless". Webster's Third new International Dictionary describe the meaning of the said term as "to make into scrap; dispose of as scrap often for salvage; to abandon or get rid of as no longer of enough worth, merits, use, or effectiveness" A more comprehensive definition of the terms relevant to the point in issue can be found in Ballentine's Law Dictionary as the said Dictionary define it is metal from worn out machines and vehicles, particularly automobiles, of value only for reprocessing or as an ingredient in the making of steel. Reference may also be made to the note 8(a) of Section XV of Pakistan Customs Tariff 2017-2018. According to the said note; metal waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of metals, and metal goods definitely not usable as such because of breaking, cutting up, wear or other reasons. [emphasis added]

9.Whereas re-meltable scrap has been defined in Customs General Order-I (in short CGO-I) of 1979, as under:--

Re-meltable scrap: Iron and steel re-meltable scrap represents scrap resulting from the cuttings, shaping or other mechanical working of iron and steel which in such form and state as is not fit for being used for any purpose except for recovery of metal as a result of the process of re-melting and is generally comprises of unstable shredded or broken pieces of iron and steel, articles of iron and steel compressed together or otherwise. (emphasis applied)

10.From aforementioned definition of scrap and re-meltable scrap manifest that only such small pieces of used waste material which no longer can be used in the original form to be called scrap. Such material would also be included metal from worn out machines, vehicles, automobile. Only value left in such material must be for reprocessing purpose or for being used as an ingredient in the making of steel. At this juncture, just to elaborate and understand the prime controversy involved in the matter, it would be appropriate to switch over to Rule-2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation of the first schedule of the Act, 1969 (Pakistan Customs Tariff) which reads as under:--

(a) any reference in heading of an article shall be taken to include the reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include the reference of that article complete or finished (or failing to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or dissembled.

[emphasis supplied]

11.In the instant case objectionable parts of the consignment i.e. motor cycles / scooty due to non-availability of rims / tyres alleged to be incomplete yet same as presented, having essential character of the complete finished article as defined in the rules (ibid). Indeed out of 49 old and used motor cycles /scooty, 48 motor cycles after fixing rims and tyres whereas remaining one scooty after replacement of broken body can easily be used for the original purpose. In short the said motor cycles/scooty as presented are serviceable in original form. Therefore, despite my best efforts I have failed to subscribe with the plea of learned advocate for the appellant that the objectionable part of the consignment is bona fide scrap.

12.Discreet glance on order-in-appeal manifest that while making references to letters two in number, dated 21.08.2015 and 24.08.2015 addressed to the department by the appellant, wherein latter expressed no interest to take delivery of disputed / objectionable goods, appeal was dismissed. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant that, the entire consignment of the appellant was detained and just to avoid demurrage charges, his client constrained to address the subject letters to the department with the sole object to get release rest (major) portion of the consignment as evident from the contents of the letter dated 24.08.2015. The learned representative of the department negated the subject contention of the advocate for the appellant on the score that without any pressure with their own consent appellant expressed no interest to take objectionable part of the consignment and requested for its confiscation.

13.It is time honour principle that the contents/language of documents are to be interpreted liberally with a wisdom to truly understand the importance of the subject document coupled with prime intention of the author. It may be added that first and foremost principle is whenever a document is couched in a language which is clear and definite and no doubt arises in its application to the effect. To ascertain the intention of the author, the documents must be considered as whole coupled with surrounding circumstances.

14.Bearing this principle in mind, I shall strive to find out the actual intention of the appellant for addressing the subject letter to the concerned authority of the department.

15.The first letter dated 21.08.2015 is in English language hand written bears signature of the representative of the appellant in urdu language. Its contents indicates that as per version of the department the scooty / motor cycle being in used condition was liable for confiscation, therefore for the release of rest of the consignment, the author of the letter expressed willingness on the confiscation of the above items. Second letter dated 24.08.2015 is written on the letter head of the appellant, wherein it has been mentioned that one objectionable items (old and used broken / damaged condition motor cycle (scooty bike)] has been noticed in the subject consignment by the Customs Staff (DIT Department). As the same items are the objectionable/banned items, therefore, due to urgent clearance of the goods (remaining portion of the consignment) [emphasis added), they have decided to detain the said items by the AICT authority and at that time they were not interested to take the delivery of the said items.

16.The contents of both the letters on sagacious glance explicitly fingered the cropped up circumstances i.e. urgent clearance of rest of the consignment, constrained the appellant to half heartedly expressed willingness for confiscation / detention of the objectionable items. The subject willingness was not voluntarily. The said estimation of mine stamped from the contents of the second letter dated 24.08.2015 wherein author / the appellant explicitly expressed clear intention of time being not interested to take the delivery of the subject items. They never expressed its confiscation for ever rather timely detention at that time. I found much weight in the plea of the learned advocate for the appellant that for urgent clearance of remaining portion of the consignment to avoid demurrages charges etc, the appellant addressed the subject letters to the department. The said compelling circumstances for addressing two letters to the concerned authority of the department by the appellant was required to be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) and he was not justified to shut the doors of the justice without redress of the grievance of the appellant on merits.

17.Close scrutiny of order-in-appeal manifest that request of the appellant for release of the subject part of the consignment after de-shaping / mutilation / scraping on the cost of the appellant was declined on the score that once goods were confiscated, it become property of Federal Government with accordance to Section 182 of the Act, 1969, therefore, the appellant being no more owner of the subject property, disentitled to the subject relief. It has already been pointed out that the appellant side during proceedings of this appeal, on assurance of representative of the department addressed an application for mutilation / scrapping of the objectionable part of the consignment to the concerned authority of the respondent but the said application could not meet with positive result and failed on the score that after submission of goods declaration (GD) the requisite benefit can not be extended to the appellant, as it is contrary to scope of Section 27-A of the Act, 1969. The learned advocate for the appellant while elaborating virus of Section 27A of the Act, 1969 focused on the point that in so many cases, the Adjudicating Authority, Appellate Authority of the Customs and Appellate Tribunals even after filing of GD allowed the requests for de-shaping of the confiscated/objectionable items but in the instant case the appellant was dealt with discrimination, as not greased palm of the concerned authority. To substantiate his claim, the learned advocate for the appellant referred Order-in-Original No.150403 dated 28.11.2013, Order-in-Original No.1247 of 2007 dated 25.04.2007, Order-in-Appeal No.684/2007 dated 20.09.2007 and Order-in-Appeal No.557/2007 dated 21.07.2007.

18.Despite query no special circumstance bought on the record by the representative of the department to justify act of vouchsafed requests of other importers in respect of de-shaping/mutilation of the items, after filing of the GD either by the adjudicating authority or by the appellate authority. However, they (representative of the department) stressed on the point that the grant of the subject benefit after filing of the GD by the importer (appellant) would make the Section 27A of the Act, 1969, redundant.

19.Looking to the subject scenario, I would like to switch over to the virus of Section 27-A of the Act, 1969. For ease of reference, same is re-produced as under:

Section 27-A

"Allowing mutilation or scraping of goods:- At the request of the owner the mutilation or scraping of goods as are notified by the Board, may be allowed, in the manner as prescribed by rules and where such goods are so mutilated or scrapped they shall be chargeable to duty at such rates as may be applicable to the goods as if they had been imported in mutilated form as scrapped."

The board framed rules for Mutilation / scraping of the imported goods as expressed in Section 27A and inserted those in Chapter XXIV in the Customs Rules, 2001, through Notification SRO 450(I)/2001 dated 18.06.2001 Comprising of Rules 592-597. Rules 592, 593 and 597 are of essential nature to meet with the issue under discussions, same are reproduced as below:--

592. Goods allowed for mutilation of scrapping:- The following old and used items, imported serviceable condition along with the scrap consignments or imported separately as a scrap and found serviceable, may be allowed mutilation or scrapping, as the case may be, within the meanings of Section 27A of the Act, namely: ?

(i)pipes or tubes;

(ii)bars or rods;

(iii)sheets or strips, slab, plates;

(iv)beams, sections, channels or girders, used and pitted railway tracks;

(v)ship plates cutting of various sizes with rough edges and having welded joints;

(vi)foils or films; and

(vii)tyres or tubes.

593. Application by importer or agent... An importer or his agent (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) before filing the goods declaration shall make a request in writing to the Assistant or Deputy Collector of Customs in respect of items specified in rule 592 for the mutilation or scrapping thereof.

597. Fee for test and other charges incurred on mutilating or scrapping of goods to be paid by the application:---The applicant shall pay fee for supervision charges and all other expenses including incidental charges connected therewith in connection with the mutilation or scrapping of goods.

The request of the appellant was declined by the concerned authority of the respondents on the basis of Rule 593 (ibid), wherein it has been said that the importer or his clearing agent has to submit a request to the Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector for mutilation / scraping before filing of goods declaration (GD) and if that was not done, the same shall not to be entertained.

20.The provision of Section 27A of the Act, 1969 is to be read and interpreted as expressed / phrased which permit mutilation or scraping of the imported goods on the request of the importer, without any condition. Whereas Rule 593 (ibid) changed the prime scope of Section 27A with the condition i.e. request is to be made before filing of GD. Indeed the Rules are subordinate to the Statute and these are made for the promotion of the Act therefore, to be used as "steeping stone" and not to be applied and operated as "stumbling blocks". They may also not to be employed to harass the taxpayer on the basis of technicalities instead of advancing the purpose for which they are framed. While saying so, I derived strength from the precedent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Messrs Nishat Mills v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Circle 2, (PLD 1989 SC 222). It is now well established principle of Statute that Rules which are merely sub-ordinate legislation can not override or prevalent on the parent statute and when ever there is inconsistency between the rule and statute the latter must prevail, as has been laid down by the Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Messrs Arjun Salt Chemical v. US Gharo (1982 SCMR 522).

21.Even otherwise, the provision of Section 27A of the Act, 1969 and Rule 593 (ibid) to be adhered in letter and spirit and for the benefit of the taxpayer by virtue of fact that these are directory in nature, as evident from the character of language in which these are couched. Needless to mention the language of Section 27A of the Act, 1969 and Rule 593 (ibid) are in affirmative, resultant, same have to be construed as directory and not mandatory. Reference in the said context, would be placed to the case of Messrs Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. Settlement Commission, Lahore and others (PLD 1971 SC 61). In the instant case, despite my best efforts, I have failed to understand that why request of the appellant was not allowed for mutilation / de-shaping of objectionable items after filing of GD either by Adjudicating Collectorate or by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Whereas similar type of request was allowed at the level of Adjudication and appeal before the Customs hierarchy as evident from the orders referred by the learned advocate for the appellant (supra).

22.Facility allowed to someone and denied to other is the discrimination. The doctrine of "equality", as contained in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, enshrined the golden rules of Islam. It states that every citizen, no matter how high-so-ever, must be accorded equal treatment with similarly situated persons. The principle is well settled that a state may classify persons and object for the purpose of legislation and make laws applicable only to persons or objects within a class. In fact almost all legislation involves some kind of classification whereby same people acquire rights or suffer disabilities whereas other do not what, however, is prohibited under this principle, is legislation favouring same within a class and unduly burdening others. The basic rule for the exercise of such discretion and reasonable classification is that all persons placed in similar circumstances must be treated alike and the reasonable classification must be based on reasonable grounds in a given set of circumstance, but the same in any case must not offend the spirit of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

23.Significant to mention, as per assertion of the representative of the department the motor cycle / scooty in old and used condition is not importable in terms of Section 11 of Appendix-C of IPO, 2013-15. On query, the learned representative of the department pointed out that subject confiscated goods as presented, would be put into auction without mutilation/de-shaping. Indeed from the said auction proceedings of the confiscated goods, the department will get very nominal amount as against the leviable duty and taxes. Another inquisitive thing drew the attention of the undersigned is that the said confiscated goods in its original shape (as presented) without mutilation/de-shaping will put into auction. Naturally the auction purchaser after replacement of broken body of scooty and fixing of tyres/rims of motor cycles will utilize the same for the original purpose other than the re-meltable scrap and same usability of confiscated goods tantamount to divergence of Section 11 of Appendix-C of IPO, 2013-15, therefore to my estimation, the request of the appellant for mutilation / scraping of the objectionable items inconsonance of Section 27A of Act, 1969 ought to have been allowed either by the Adjudicating Authority or by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and same request not to be straight away turned down, more particular when similar type of the requests were vouchsafed in other cases, referred to above.

24.Assuredly, the confiscated/objectionable items namely motor cycle/scooty in old and used condition, 49 in number along with re-meltable scrap imported by the appellant. I, therefore hereby vouchsafed request of the appellant side for release of the said confiscated goods after de-shaping / mutilation to the extent of small pieces usable as re-meltable scrap only inconsonance of Section 27A of Act, 1969, on the expenses of the appellant and on payment of penalty of Rs.50,000/- in addition to payment of leviable duty and taxes, if not paid earlier to the extent of the said objectionable items. In sequel of above discussion, the order-in-original and order-in-appeal are set aside. Order passed accordingly.

25.Announced in open court.

HBT/3/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.