IBRAHIM VS CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 2019 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1003 (2019)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 196, 156 & 157---Procedure of Customs Appellate Tribunal---Confiscation of goods---Confiscation of vehicle involved in smuggling of goods---Jurisdiction of High Court under S. 196 of the Customs Act, 1969---Nature---Question of law---Scope---Question before the High Court was whether Customs Appellate Tribunal did not exercise jurisdiction vested in it properly by not giving its findings on issue which was raised in show-cause notice to the person whose vehicle was confiscated---Held, that customs Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order, had not decided the issue of whether vehicle confiscated was involved "wholly and exclusively" for transportation of smuggled goods, which was a finding to be reached after determining facts ofthe case---Customs Appellate Tribunal, being the last fact-finding forum, had to exercise its jurisdiction diligently to decide an issue on basis of facts arrived before it after discussing the record related to the matter---Failure of Customs Appellate Tribunal, in the present case, to exercise its jurisdiction would be tantamount to a question of law---High Court remanded matter to Customs Appellate Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh---Reference was answered, accordingly.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-II, Karachi v. Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi 2002 SCMR 527 = 2002 PTD 419 rel.

Mian Abdul Bari Rashid for Petitioner.

Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh for Respondents.

ORDER

Through this Customs Reference filed under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 ("Act"), the petitioner has called in question judgment/order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench-I, Lahore, ("Appellate Tribunal") whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that on 08.08.2017 Hino Truck bearing Registration No.TAB, 112/Lasbella, loaded with smuggled/non duty paid miscellaneous goods concealed under iron/steel scrap, was intercepted by the Seizing Agency while destined for Lahore from Quetta under the garb of builty issued by M/s. Sitara-al-Masood Khan Goods Transport Company, Quetta reflecting full load iron scrap and GD showing import of iron and steel remeltable scrap. The Seizing Agency vide order dated 08.08.2017 seized the smuggled goods along with the truck under Sections 168 and 157 of the Act. The adjudicating authority ordered for outright confiscation of the said goods. The petitioner challenged the afore referred order before the appellate tribunal by filing an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2018. The petitioner has called in question the afore referred order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal could not dismiss his appeal without determining the allegation that the said vehicle was involved in a wholly and exclusively manner for transportation of smuggled goods and consequently could not maintain the order of the adjudicating authority to outrightly confiscate the same under Clause 89(i) of Sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act read with Clauses "a" and "b" of the preamble of SRO No.499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009.

3.We have gone through the impugned judgment/order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the operative part of which is reproducedbelow:--

"From the perusal of the said reply, it reveals that the alleged GD No. QCHM-HC-390 dated 11.07.2017 was fabricated by the appellants in order to cover up the impugned goods, as lawfully imported into the country. It is also astonishing to note that the Registration number of the said vehicle was also entered in the impugned GD to show that the impugned goods have been loaded in a vehicle whose registration was TAB-112/Lasbella. Messrs Usman Steel Mills (importer), as per recovered GD has submitted that neither he had filed the GD nor had paid anyduty and taxes against the same. It is very much clear from the record that the seized goods are smuggled one and the present appellant has fabricated the GD in the name of MessrsUsman Steel Mills (importer) to misuse the same and an attempt has been made to transport the smuggled goods under the cover of the said GD."

4.Perusal of the afore referred impugned order shows that the Appellate Tribunal, while dismissing the petitioner's appeal against order of confiscation of truck, has not decided the issue raised through show-cause notice that vehicle in question was involved in a wholly and exclusively manner for transportation of smuggled goods, which was a finding to be reached after determination of the facts of the case. The Appellate Tribunal is the last facts finding forum and has to exercise its jurisdiction diligently to decide an issue on the basis of facts arrived at before it alter discussing the record relating to the facts. The failure of the Tribunal to exercise its vested jurisdiction relating to determination of facts would be tantamount to a question of law. Reliance in this regard is placed on Commissioner Inland Revenue v. MessrsMehranTraders (2015 PTD 1330) and Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-II, Karachi v. MessrsSindhEngineering (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi (2002 SCMR 527 = 2002 PTD 419). In the given circumstances, the question of law necessarily arises that "whether Appellate Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law?" Our answer to the question is in the negative.

5.For what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal for deciding the same within a period of 30 days from receipt of the order of this Court by determining the issue relating to the truck being involved in a wholly and exclusively manner for transportation of smuggled goods. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law.

6.The reference is allowed in the foregoing terms.

KMZ/I-4/LCase remanded.