2002 PLP 1713 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX), FAISALABAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1713 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX), FAISALABAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1713 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1713 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1713 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKRAM‑‑‑Appellant Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX), FAISALABAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.
- A. Karim Malik for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 194‑B & 196‑‑‑Disposal of appeal by Tribunal not listed for hearing‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such disposal was not warranted by any provision of Customs Act, 1969 or any substantive or procedural law in force in Pakistan‑‑‑Impugned order clearly militated against law‑‑‑High Court declared the appeal filed by appellant to be still pending before the Tribunal, which would be heard after due fixation and notice to parties.
Judgment & Decree
It is stated that a number of identical petitions were heard by the learned Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on 8‑11‑2002 and were disposed of through their judgment dated 22‑1‑2002. The appellant complains that his appeal was not listed alongwith Appeal No.297/LB of 2001 decided by the Tribunal alongwith many others. However, even then the Tribunal disposed of his appeal with the following observations contained in para. 12 of the impugned order:‑‑ "In view of the above, the appeal in hand is dismissed alongwith all the appeals previously pending before Lahore Bench‑I and Lahore Bench‑II in which orders for outright confiscation of the goods had been passed by the Adjudicating Officers without giving the appellants an option to redeem them on the payment of redemption fine in view of the expressed or implied admission of cite appellants about their smuggled nature."
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits and we will readily agree that disposal of all those appeals which were neither heard nor were listed for hearing before the Tribunal was not in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal, obviously after having recorded a judgment on a particular issue could very well dispose‑ of identical matters with a reference to that judgment. However this could only be done after these appeals were listed for hearing and the parties were given an opportunity to be heard. Instead the learned Tribunal adopted a novel way to dispose of those appeals which were still pending decision before different Benches. The disposal of an appeal pending on the file of another Bench or lying with the office in the abovenoted manner has surprised us. Section 194‑B of the Customs Act, 1969 expressly provides for giving the parties to an appeal an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, an appeal listed or pending on the file of a Bench cannot be disposed of by another Bench irrespective of its strength or the fact, that the Members of that Bench are also the Members of the larger Bench. The disposal of an appeal not listed before a Bench is not warranted by any provision of the Customs Act, 1969 or for that matter by any substantive or procedural law in force in Pakistan. The operative part of the impugned judgment as reproduced above clearly militates against law.
3. Therefore, we will agree that the appeal filed by the present appellant is still pending before the Tribunal to be heard after due fixation and notice to the parties for hearing. S. A. K./M‑1139/L Order accordingly.