2007 PLP 2480 (PTD)
AMIR KHAN through Zia-ud-Din Chaman Versus SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (IMPORT) CUSTOMS DRY PORT, FAISALABAD and another
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2480 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR KHAN through Zia-ud-Din Chaman Versus SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (IMPORT) CUSTOMS DRY PORT, FAISALABAD and another |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2480 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2480 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2480 (PTD) (AMIR KHAN through Zia-ud-Din Chaman Versus SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (IMPORT) CUSTOMS DRY PORT, FAISALABAD and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.
- M. Nawaz Cheema for Respondent.
- This appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 is directed against the order and judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Hafiz Muhammad Anees who was a Member Technical of the Tribunal, which passed the impugned order was also the Collector of Customs, Faisalabad under whose direction the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, initiating the proceedings culminating in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is contended that the propriety demands that Hafiz Muhammad Anees should have recused himself from hearing the appeal. He became a Judge in his own cause. Furthermore justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done. The learned counsel for the Department has frankly conceded that in the instant case it could perhaps have been proper for the appeal to be heard by the Tribunal of which Hafiz Muhammad Anees was not a Member.
- It has been noticed that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant as to the impropriety of Hafiz Muhammad Anees hearing the case are mentioned in the impugned order but the same were not adjudicated upon. Furthermore the learned counsel for the Department has not contested the contentions raised in his behalf by the counsel for the appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 194 & 196
Appeal before Appellate Tribunal
Objection of appellant that Member (Technical) of the Tribunal should refuse to hear appeal for he as Collector had passed order challenged in appeal after issuing show-cause notice to the appellant
Dismissal of appeal by Tribunal without deciding such objection
Appellant's such contention was mentioned in the order of Tribunal, but same was not adjudicated upon
Department had not opposed such objection of appellant
High Court set aside impugned order and remanded case to .Tribunal for its decision afresh after hearing both parties.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 is directed against the order and judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Hafiz Muhammad Anees who was a Member Technical of the Tribunal, which passed the impugned order was also the Collector of Customs, Faisalabad under whose direction the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant, initiating the proceedings culminating in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is contended that the propriety demands that Hafiz Muhammad Anees should have recused himself from hearing the appeal. He became a Judge in his own cause. Furthermore justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done. The learned counsel for the Department has frankly conceded that in the instant case it could perhaps have been proper for the appeal to be heard by the Tribunal of which Hafiz Muhammad Anees was not a Member. It has been noticed that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant as to the impropriety of Hafiz Muhammad Anees hearing the case are mentioned in the impugned order but the same were not adjudicated upon. Furthermore the learned counsel for the Department has not contested the contentions raised in his behalf by the counsel for the appellant. In this view of the matter the impugned order is set said, the case is remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh after hearing both the parties. The appeal is accepted in the above terms. S.A.K./A-183/L Case remanded.