2008 PLP (Trib (PTD)

ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL).

1. This appeal has been filed by the Assistant Director, Intelligence and Investigation, Central Board of Revenue, Range Office, Multan and Senior Intelligence Officer, Intelligence and Investigation, Central Board of Revenue, D.G. Khan against Order-in-Appeal No. 99/2007, dated 24-4-2005 whereby, learned Collector (Appeal) has ordered release of "Hino Prime Mover Machine" bearing registration No. QAE-6623, Chassis No. 17296 confiscated vide Order-in-(Original No. 40 of 2007; dated 6-2-2007.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 12-5-2002, the Customs Intelligence staff of D.G. Khan intercepted a vehicle "Hino Prime Mover Machine" bearing registration No.QAE-6623. On physical examination, classis number of the vehicle i.e. 17296 was found grinded, self-punched and without model code while its model, according to the sticker placed on the cabin, was found to be "FN-28 On demand, the driver of the vehicle produced photo-copies of registration book and auction voucher issued by the Ordnance Depot, Quetta to prove that the vehicle was purchased in auction. The vehicle was seized and subsequent "investigation carried out by the department revealed that the chassis number (being self-punched/grinded) was not relevant to the auction voucher which indicated auction of six vehicles including one Hino Truck carrying chassis number 17296. The case was adjudicated by the Additional Collector Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise (Adjudication), Multan vide Order-in-Original No.18 of 2003, dated 29-11-2002, whereby the vehicle was confiscated out-rightly. On appeal against this order, this Tribunal observed that previously, the Deputy Superintendent DEC and AS Custom House, Lahore, vide letter, dated 8-7-1997, had declared that the vehicle in question was not smuggled one. The case was accordingly remanded back by the Tribunal vide its judgment, dated 12-8-2005 in Appeal No. 58/LB/2003 with the direction to dispose it of afresh after recording the statement of the said officer and physical examination of the vehicle by the concerned officer/official of the department of Pakistan Army at Quetta to determine the factual position. However, the vehicle was again confiscated vide Order-in-Original No.40 of 2007, dated 6-2-2007. The respondent filed appeal against this order before Collector (Appeals), Multan who, after hearing the parties and conducting necessary verification from concerned department, set aside the order-in-original and ordered release of the vehicle to its lawful owner vide impugned order.

3. Through the instant appeal, the department has challenged the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:-- (1) That according to the auction voucher, the vehicle carrying chassis number 17296 was a Hino Truck whereas, the vehicle in question is "Hino Prime Mover Machine". (2) That the Motor Registration Authority also registered the vehicle as truck on the basis of auction voucher which was not relevant and therefore, the registration was not genuine. (3) That the Ordnance Depot Quetta confirmed through letter, dated 22-7-2002 that the auctioned vehicle was Hino truck.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal relying mainly on the ground that the department did not obtain expert opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory to confirm its allegation that the chassis number of the vehicle was not original/genuine. He further submitted that the department treated the chassis number as tampered one only on the ground that it appeared self-punched without going into the fact that, according to the certificate, dated 17-3-2004 issued by Messrs Hino Pak Motors, Karachi, chassis numbers of all Hino models was punched manually in their plant and, for some time in the past, they were punched without or with incomplete model codes. The vehicle were previously checked by the customs staff of Lahore and released after verification of its particulars from concerned departments. The auction voucher produced by the respondent was, on verification by Collector (Appeals), found genuine and therefore, the order of release of vehicle passed by him was lawful. Learned counsel prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.

5. I have perused the record and given due consideration to the contentions .raised by both sides. The entire case of the appellant department is based on the premise that chassis number carried by the vehicle was self-punched/grinded and, therefore, the auction voucher No. S&D-647/Auction produced by the respondents in support of their contention that the same had been purchased in auction from Ordnance Depot, was not relevant while according to the certificate of Messrs Hino Pak Karachi, dated 17-3-2004, chassis numbers of Hino Trucks were punched manually in their plant and for some time in the past even without or with incomplete model numbers. In such a situation, the department should have, as a matter of practice in such cases, got the vehicle tested by Forensic. Science Laboratory to ascertain whether the chassis number found on the vehicle i.e. 17296 was original or not. The department, however, failed to follow this important step in investigation and, as such, failed to establish that the chassis number was not genuine. A perusal of the copies of relevant portions of appeal file produced by learned counsel during the course of arguments and the contents of impugned order shows that. the impugned order was passed by Collector (Appeals) after verification/confirmation of auction of vehicle carrying chassis number 17296 by the Ordinance Depot, Quetta vide auction voucher No. S&D 647/auction, dated 6-4-1989. The appellant's contention that the auctioned vehicle as shown in the auction voucher was Hino truck, whereas, the vehicle in question was "Prime Mover Machine" does not carry much weight as both these terms are generally used for such vehicles and in the absence of solid evidence/proof that the chassis number of the vehicle was not genuine, this argument is not tenable.

6. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which is up-held and the appeal is rejected being without merit. C.M.A./175/Tax (Trib.) Appeal dismissed.