2006 PLP 710 (PTD)

SALIM KHAN, J.

The present second appeal is against the judgment/order dated 10-6-2005 in Appeal No.7(571)CU/IB/2000(PB) of the learned Appellate Tribunal, Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax, Peshawar Bench, vide which it was held that the appellant and his origanization were not entitled to the confiscation of car of the respondent. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. It was alleged against the present respondent that he had produced a fake and non-genuine letter of sale permission, and, therefore, he was liable to the penalty for violating sections 19 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The learned Additional Collector, vide his order, dated 20-9-2000 in case Order-in-Original No.162/2000 held that due to denial by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding letter bearing C. No.F.No./PCD/889/99 dated 16-10-1999, the owner Major General (Rtd.) Mehrabuddin had utterly failed to produce authentic sale permission enabling him to avail exemption under S.R.O. No.506(I)/88 dated 26-6-1988.

3. The learned Appellate Tribunal took the- whole case in consideration, and came to the conclusion that the abovementioned order-in-original was not based on solid reasons and was liable to setting aside. For the reasons given in the judgment in Appeal No.7(571)CU/IB/2000(PB), the learned Judicial Member of the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench, accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order-in-original and directed the respondents to restore the vehicle in question to its rightful owner, if not required in any other case.

4. It is not denied on record that more than five years have passed after the original purchase of the car in question and no payment of Government dues, duties and taxes is involved in the light of the relevant S.R.O., and the car in question is still in the name of the respondent, but no steps for sale of the same have been taken, except that the respondent voluntarily produced the car for assessment of duties/taxes, if any.

5. As quoted by the learned Additional Collector as well as by the learned Member of the Appellate Tribunal of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax, the text of the letter of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad, with respect to sale permission reads as under:

"It is stated that as per record of the Ministry no such NOC bearing C. No.F.No.PCD/889/99 dated 16-10-99, was issued from this Ministry. Neither the reference No. mentioned in the NOC nor the signing officer/designation belongs to this Ministry. However, the issuance of sale permission No.(IV-10/94/98 dated 26-2-1999 is confirmed." The sale permission No.(IV)-10/94/98 dated 26-2-1999 has been confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, in favour of the respondent who was a diplomat. The other mentioned document appears to be ,the result of some misunderstanding, otherwise the respondent was not normally expected to produce the same. Certain benefits regarding the purchase, maintenance and sale of the car in question had accrued to the respondent as a result of promulgation and implementation of law and due to completion of the prescribed period. The law could not be misinterpreted for the purpose of depriving the respondent of the said benefits. The impugned judgment/order of the learned Appellate Tribunal is based on correct interpretation of law and its proper application to the facts of the case in hand.

6. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, and Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which we dismiss in limine. S.A.K./11/P Appeal dismissed in limine.