2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Date of hearing: 21st February, 2002. MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).‑‑‑This appeal is directed against the Customs Order‑in‑Original No.65 of 2001, dated 9‑3‑2001 (dispatched on 31‑3‑2001) passed, by learned Deputy Collector (Adjudication), Faisalabad whereby the second hand Toyota Corolla Car bearing Registration No.RNL‑7865 was confiscated in favour of the Government on the ground of its being non‑duty paid.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in question was duly imported by Mr. Arshad Javed son of Muhammad Sadiq who got the same cleared on payment of duty and taxes vide Bill of Entry No.46889, dated 29‑11‑1993 Index No.26, IGM No.2355, dated 28‑11‑1993 and that thereafter he sold the same to a Zamindar of Rahim Yar Khan from whom the appellant purchased it about six month back against an amount of Rs.4,15,000 that the appellant was waiting for suitable registration number and meanwhile he plied the vehicle by applying the registration number allotted to his tractor; that the said vehicle was parked in a "Dhara" during winter season by the earlier owner and the "Shehteer" of said Dhara collapsed and resulted in damaging the vehicle and during the process of repair the upper side of chassis was slightly welded and, that the appellant got repaired front screen, bonnet and dash‑board besides the chassis plate from one side. The learned counsel submitted that since the confiscated vehicle was lawfully imported and since the fact of lawful import was duly verified from the Customs Authorities, therefore, the same could not have been confiscated merely on the basis of conjectures and suppositions as has been done by the learned Adjudicating Officer. It was further submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 10‑2‑2001 also proved beyond any doubt that the chassis number of the confiscated vehicle was the same (EE90‑5010373) which was of the imported vehicle.

3. The learned D.R. requested for an adjournment but since the record was complete and there was no plausible explanation for the request of adjournment, therefore, the same was declined.

4. We have considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record.

5. The lab. report re‑produced in para 5 of the impugned order is as under:‑‑ "The chemical treatment of the chassis number of Toyota Corolla Car Registration No.RNL‑7865 in the case cited as subject has revealed that no other number could be deciphered under except the present No. i.e. EE90‑5010373. However, its chassis plate has been cut and welded on the upper side of chassis place."

6. The report leaves no doubt that no other chassis number except EE90‑5010373 could be deciphered after chemical treatment. This report also shows that chassis plate has been cut and welded on the upper side of chassis plate. The valid import of the used Toyota Corolla Car bearing Chassis No.EE90‑5010373 has been duly confirmed by Incharge Computer Cell, Custom House, Peshawar vide his letter, dated 17‑3‑2001 addressed to the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation Custom, Excise and Sales Tax, Faisalabad.

7. The mere fact that the vehicle was not got duly registered with the Excise and Taxation Department for several years and was found to be plying with Registration No. RNL‑7865 allotted to a tractor by itself would not be ground for holding that the vehicle was non‑duty paid specially when the import status of the same was duly confirmed by the j competent authority. The report of the Chemical Examiner also does not advance the case of the prosecution because no other chassis number could be deciphered even after chemical treatment except the one which is mentioned in the import documents and which the seized vehicle carried on the chassis plate which though found to be cut and welded on the upper side would not by itself be a ground for holding that the entire chassis plate was replaced.

8. For whatever has been stated above, we have come to the conclusion that impugned order is not sustainable in law. The same is set aside, the appeal is accepted and the confiscated vehicle is directed to be released to its lawful owner without any condition. C.M.A./713/Tax (Trib.) Appeal accepted.