2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Zafar-ul-Majeed, Member (Technical) and Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Zafar-ul-Majeed, Member (Technical) and Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Ghazi for Appellant.
- Imran Tariq D.R. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 17 & 156(1)(8)
Detention and confiscation of goods, imported in breach of section 15 or section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969-- Recovered car was confiscated
No opportunity of being heard
Representative of the department himself suggested that since prima facie no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant, the order may be set aside for fresh decision according to law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence which the parties may like to produce
Order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal accordingly. Date hearing: 24th January, 2002.
Judgment & Decree
Imran Tariq D.R. for Respondent. Date hearing: 24th January, 2002. MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).
Heard. Record examined.
2. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.1121-1132 of 2001, dated 30-5-2001 passed by the learned Deputy Collector (Adjudication), Multan, whereby while dealing the case of Dost Muhammad and others, the learned Adjudicating Officer confiscated the goods recovered from Dost Muhammad and others and at the same time applied the impugned order to 11 other persons out of which the appellant figures at S. No.7 and as a result of applying the, said order to the appellant, a Toyota Car bearing Registration No.G-1234 recovered from the possession of the Appellant was also confiscated. We have noticed that the learned Adjudicating Officer in para 3 of the impugned order has observed that no one appeared on behalf of Dost Muhammad and others and that no written reply was also filed and that, therefore, the case was being decided ex parte on merits.
3. The learned D.R. after examining the record has suggested that since prima facie no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant, therefore, in all fairness and to meet the requirements of law the impugned order to the extent of the appellant may be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned Adjudicating Officer for a fresh decision according to law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence which the parties may like to produce. The suggestion made by the learned D.R. is very fair. Acting upon the said suggestion, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of the appellant and remand the case to the learned Adjudicating Officer for a fresh decision according to law after hearing the parties and after- receiving the evidence which the parties may like to produce. C.M.A./705/Tax (Trib.) Case remanded.