2004 PLP 1944 (PTD)

Date of Index Arrival of the consignment vide IGM No. No. of Pill of entry A/W date of payment of taxes

1. Silver Reed Int. EZ‑50 12256/87 25‑6‑1987 113 DA1206 16‑7‑1987 2.Silver Reed Int. EX‑300 1483/87 30‑6‑1987 67 C‑5780

4. Universal Business Equipment Ltd. EZ‑45 1256/87 26‑6‑1987 109 DA‑1207 16‑7‑1987

5. Universal Busi‑ ness Equipment EZ‑50 1256/87 25‑6‑1987 108 DA‑1207 16‑7‑1987 On the other hand Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in terms of section 196 of the Customs Act only legal issues arising out of the Tribunal can be referred to this court and since no such issue of limitation was either presented before the Tribunal or argued before it, therefore, this issue cannot be examined by this Court. In support of his submissions learned counsel has relied upon Messrs Faran Enterprises v. The Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (1999 CLC 735) and Messrs Baba Khan v. Collector of Customs, Quetta (2000 SCMR 678). We have heard both the learned counsel and our conclusions are as follows:‑‑ It would, be seen that as per well‑settled law right up to the Honourable Supreme Court the issue of limitation can be agitated before any forum including the Honourable Supreme Court although it has not been agitated before any of the lower Courts. This principle of law is sod well‑settled that no reference need be made to the decided cases. Further, it is also well‑settled that legal issues, which are specifically not pleaded before any judicial forum have to be taken up and decided by that forum since a duty is cast upon such forum to take notice of such C legal issues themselves. In the present case, it does not appear that the learned Tribunal considered the issue of limitation. However, upon reading of the last para. of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that perhaps this was not a case of misdeclaration or concealment of facts intentionally so as to attract the penal provision of section 32(2) but rather a case falling under section 32(3) of the Customs Act. In such view of the matter in our opinion the matter is to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to consider whether the show‑cause notice issued on 4‑2‑1988 insofar as the consignments mentioned above are within time or not. Order accordingly. As regards the other consignments in question learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that the show‑cause notice would be within time since these were cleared on 31‑8‑1987. As far as the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent are concerned, we are of the opinion that these would not apply to the facts of the present case since therein the Honourable Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that it was a willful misdeclaration on the part of the appellant/Importer, which should be visited with penal consequences. We have already observed that in view of the learned Tribunal's order, this does not appear to be so in which event penal consequences may not result in terms of section 32(2) of the Customs Act. The learned Tribunal shall be at liberty to form its own views regarding limitation without being influenced by this order. S.A.K./U‑1/K Case remanded.