2005 PLP 1137 (PTD)
Haji MEERA JAN Versus THE STATE through Superintendent of Customs, Anti-Smuggling Organization, Lahore and 2 others
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1137 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | Haji MEERA JAN Versus THE STATE through Superintendent of Customs, Anti-Smuggling Organization, Lahore and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1137 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1137 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1137 (PTD) (Haji MEERA JAN Versus THE STATE through Superintendent of Customs, Anti-Smuggling Organization, Lahore and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ghafoor Khatak for Appellant.
- Dr. Sohail Akhtar for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 156(1)(8), 181 & 196
Confiscation of smuggled goods
Anti-Smuggling Staff intercepted a truck and found therein machine made carpets of foreign origin and also free wheels for cycles made in India
Truck driver submitted a photocopy of bill of entry to show import of carpets, but no document was presented in respect of other goods
Addl. Collector (Adjudication) finding that charges of smuggling had been established, against appellant ordered confiscation of said goods in favour of Government
Owner of said goods, however was given option to redeem same on payment of Rs.500,000 as redemption fine and owner was also burdened with personal penalty of Rs. 200,000
Tribunal, by way of impugned order, maintained findings so recorded by Collector, but order of imposition of personal penalty on owner of goods was found harsh and remitted in toto
Appellant/owner was not able to challenge impugned order of Tribunal as well as that of Adjudicating Authority on any cogent ground and failed to produce any proof of lawful import and possession of goods in question
Treatment meted out to appellant owner by two forums below was not open to exception
Contention of appellant owner, that redemption fine of Rs.500,000 on goods was on higher side, was accepted and same was reduced to Rs. 150,000.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 assails an order of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 31-5-2002.
2. On 13-8-2001 the Anti-Smuggling Staff of the Customs Department, Lahore intercepted a Truck No.QAD-9551 near Farooqabad, Sargodha Road, Sheikhupura and found machine made carpets of foreign origin as also free wheels for cycles, diamond brand made in India. On demand the Truck driver submitted a photocopy of Bill of Entry No. 1220, dated 18-10-2000 to show the import of the carpets. However, no document was presented in respect of the aforesaid other goods.
3. On usual proceedings by way of the Order-in-Original, dated 19-9-2001 the Addl. Collector (Adjudication) found that the charges made against the respondent as confronted to them through show-cause notice were established and therefore, the goods seized as detailed in recovery memo. were confiscated in favour of the Government. However, the owner was given option to redeem the same on payment of Rs.500,000 as redemption fine. Also the owner was burdened with personal penalty of Rs.200,
000. Learned Tribunal by way of the impugned order maintained the findings so recorded though the imposition of personal penalty was found harsh and therefore, remitted in toto.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the appellant has not been able to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as that the Adjudicating Authority on any mentionable ground. The fact that the appellant failed to produce any proof of lawful import and possession of the goods in question appears established on record. We are also in agreement with the forums below that Bill of Entry No. 1220, dated 18-10-2002 as well as the sales tax Invoice No. 28, dated 28-10-2000 could not be related to the goods seized by the department. The observation of the forums below that the goods covered by the said bill of entry were cleared on 30-10-2000 while the sales tax invoice evidencing payment of sales tax was two days earlier i.e. 28-10-2000 has not been controverted by any cogent evidence or arguments. Therefore, the treatment meted out to the appellant by the two forums below is not open to exception.
5. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the value of the goods in hand the redemption fine of Rs.500,000 is on the higher side appears unjustified.
6. Therefore, keeping in view the said contention as also the attending facts of the case, although the rest of the order, has been upheld, we will direct the reduction of fine from Rs.500,000 to 1,50,000.
7. The appeal is accepted to the aforesaid extent only. H.B.T./M-904/L Appeal partly accepted.