2003 PLP 1879 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1879 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Bashir A. Mujahid, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1879 (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 1879 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jilani and Bashir A. Mujahid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1879 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waqar Azeem for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 194-A(1)(a), first proviso [since deleted by Finance Ordinance (XXVII of 2002) w.e.f. 1-7-2002], 2(s), 3 & 181
S.R.O. 1374(I)/96, Table 1
Import and Export (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(3)-- Release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation
Tribunal accepted appeal on such ground on 1-7-2002
Contention of Revenue was that appeal before Tribunal was not competent as order impugned therein related to "no goods imported or exported as baggage"
Validity--Question of jurisdiction had not been raised before the Tribunal
First proviso to S. 194-A(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1969 had been deleted by Finance Ordinance; 2002 w.e.f. 1-7-2002
High Court dismissed the appeal. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Nabha Road, Lahore v. Abdul Majeed 2001 CLC 1461 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 194-A(1)(a), first proviso [since deleted by Finance Ordinance (XXVII of 2002) w.e.f. 1-7-2002], 2(s), 3 & 181
S.R.O. 1374(I)/96, Table 1
Import and Export (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(3)-- Release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation
Tribunal accepted appeal on such ground on 1-7-2002
Contention of Revenue was that appeal before Tribunal was not competent as order impugned therein related to "no goods imported or exported as baggage"
Validity--Question of jurisdiction had not been raised before the Tribunal
First proviso to S. 194-A(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1969 had been deleted by Finance Ordinance; 2002 w.e.f. 1-7-2002
High Court dismissed the appeal. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Nabha Road, Lahore v. Abdul Majeed 2001 CLC 1461 ref. Waqar Azeem for Appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 1-7-2002 vide which the learned Tribunal set aside the order of the Assistant Collector Customs, allowed the appeal and directed that "the goods in question are neither notified under section 2(s) read with section 156(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 and nor' listed in the Negative List of the Prevalent Import Policy order. Therefore, these do not fall under Table-1 of S.R.O. 1374(I)/96, and therefore, outright confiscation was not justified. That being so, we order that the confiscated goods in question shall be allowed release to the appellant/owner on payment of fine equal to 25% of the amount of duty/taxes involved in lieu of confiscation alongwith payment of duty/taxes payable
2. The only point of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in terms of proviso to section 194-A(1)(d), no appeal was competent against the order which relates to, "No goods imported or exported as baggage". In support of the submissions made, learned 'counsel relied on judgment reported in 2001 CLC 1461 "Collector of Customs, Customs House, Nabha Road, Lahore v. Abdul Majeed."
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the afore referred proviso was deleted by Finance Ordinance 2002 which came into effect on 1st of July, 2002.
4. Admittedly, the question of jurisdiction was never raised by the appellant department before the Appellate Tribunal and may be the counsel appearing before the Appellate Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the afore referred proviso stood deleted on 1-7-2002 when the judgment of the learned Tribunal was passed. In the afore referred circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. S.A.K./C-209/L Appeal dismissed.