2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)

3. The appeal was stated to be barred by the time according to report by the Assistant Registrar. The office objection was considered in the light of application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal was held to be within time vide order, dated 5‑12‑2001.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants on 5‑12‑2001 requested for release of the confiscated goods on payment of leviable duty and taxes plus moderate amount of redemption fine but the consideration of this request as deferred till after decision by the Full Bench which was hearing a remanded appeal from the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore involving the point regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal to release confiscated goods on payment of leviable duty and taxes by following its practice.

5. The learned counsel again on 17‑4‑2002 submitted that the appellant was an innocent purchaser who purchased the goods on an assurance that these were duty paid but having come to know that these were non‑duty paid the appellant made a request before the learned Adjudicating Officer for their release on payment of leviable duty and taxes plus moderate amount of redemption fine but the learned Adjudicating Officer did not accede to this request and confiscated the goods without allowing any option for their redemption.

6. The learned counsel requested that these goods may be released on payment of leviable duty and taxes plus moderate amount of redemption fine.

7. The learned D.R. has opposed this request on the basis of recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore.

8. Before the decision by the Full Bench on the remanded appeal, the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore gave a detailed judgment involving all the points under consideration in the remanded appeal before the Full Bench vide judgment, dated 19‑9‑2001 in Appeal No. 4 of 1998. The relevant observation for purposes of this appeal as contained in para 12 at page 11 is re‑produced as under:‑‑ "A question may arise here if the provisos to section 181 make part of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal conferred under section 194‑B as redundant. The answer is no. The Tribunal, will still have the jurisdiction to rule if the goods were liable to be confiscated for the reasons given by the appropriate officer. However, once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the goods were liable to be confiscated, it cannot interfere with the impugned order of the appropriate officer made in the light of an order by the Board specifying the goods of class of goods where option of payment of fine is not to be given. In other words where the appropriate "officer has refused to allow option in view of an order of the Board made under the provisos, the Tribunal cannot allow that option. In the same token where an appropriate officer imposes fine as fixed by the C.B.R. the Tribunal cannot reduce the same any further. It is so for the reason that the order of the Board made in this regard has the force of the statute. As said above even this Court under section 196 of the Act will not allow a relief which is opposed to the order of the Board though on Constitutional side that order may very well be struck down for an conceivable legal infirmity.

9. The Full Bench has also given its judgment which is not relevant in view of judgment by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in Appeal No.4 of 1998.

10. The appellants failed to produce any documents to show the lawful import or their legal possession of the confiscated goods before the learned Adjudicating Officer or even before us. Their request for release of the confiscated goods on payment of leviable duty and taxes was not acceded to by the learned Adjudicating Officer and we are also unable to accept the same because in view of the fact that the confiscated goods were admittedly of foreign origin, their confiscation has rightly been ordered without any option for their redemption and this Tribunal although was earlier allowing release of such‑like goods on payment of leviable duty and taxes plus moderate amount to redemption fine but is no longer possessed of the same jurisdiction as its exercise has been held to be illegal by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in judgment in Appeal No. 4 of 1998. 10‑A. The result is that we find no merit in appeal which is dismissed. C.M.A./707/Tax (Trib.) Appeal dismissed