2004 PLP 1767 (MLD)

TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.- The respondent/Customs Department impounded the vehicle subject-matter of this appeal on the suspicion that it was a smuggled item. After initial investigation the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad and the report received was to the following effect: "The chemical treatment of the chassis number of the Toyota Hiace Regd. No.PE-1796-Karachi in the case as subject has revealed that its chassis number place has been cut and another iron sheet bearing No.LH-114-0012336 has been welded on the chassis number place." Since the appellant could not produce ownership documents the vehicle was seized in terms of section 168 of the Customs Act for violating section 16 of the said Act. The matter was referred to the Collector for adjudication. The same was taken up by the Deputy Collector Customs who relying on an affidavit given by a private tender came to the conclusion that the vehicle had met an accident and there was no tampering with chassis No. And that no case for contravention of any provisions of the Customs Act was made out. This was vide order date 10-5-2002. The Collector of Customs and Central Intelligence challenged this order in appeal which was allowed by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax, Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 4-3-2003. The learned Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that the appellants had failed to controvert the concurrent findings of two Forensic Science Laboratories's reports to the effect that chassis number had been tampered with.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submitted that the learned Appellate Tribunal has failed to realize that a case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 245 dated 30-10-2000, Police Station, Golra Sharif that chassis was badly damaged to the said extent that it was repaired and that repaired chassis has wrongly been reported as tampered by the Forensic Science Laboratory. He urged that the learned Appellate Tribunal should not have decided the matter till the trial in the afore-referred criminal case was concluded.

3. Learned counsel for the Customs Department submits that afore-referred F.I.R. Was cooked-up affair, that there is no report either of the Investigating Officer or any other Forensic Science Expert which could controvert the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory's report on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed.

4. Admittedly, the appellant never challenged the concurrent report of the Forensic Science Laboratories on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. An affidavit given by the private tender cannot rebut the findings of a Scientific Laboratory. Notwithstanding this factual aspect, no question of law has been raised by the learned counsel which could merit interference in appeal. The appeal itself is not maintainable. Resultantly, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./A-235/L Appeal dismissed.