2010 PLP 1333 (PTD)

IMTIAZ ALI, J.

This is an appeal under section 196 of Customs Act, 1969 against the order and judgment of Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax (Appellate Tribunal) in Appeal No.7(271) CUS/IB/2000 (PB) dated 20-12-2005, whereby appeal of appellant was dismissed and Order-in-Original No.13/2000 dated 27-5-2000 passed by respondents of outright confiscation of seized vehicle, Toyota Land Cruiser bearing Registration No.AJKD-7867 having Chassis No.ADJ-0057203, Engine No.0117517, Model No.1995 was upheld. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the order of learned Tribunal dated 15-11-2003 are as under:-- "In pursuance of an information, the Customs officers of the Customs Special Checking Squad, Peshawar, intercepted a 1995 Model Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep bearing Registration No.AJKD-7867 (having Chassis No.HDJ81-0057203 and Engine No.0117517) on 14-12-1999 at 1500 hours while it was on its way at Ring Road, Peshawar. The chassis number of the vehicle seemed to have been tampered with. The Customs Officers, therefore, detained the vehicle for laboratory analysis of the chassis and issued notice under section 2 (kk) and section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, informed about the detention and the reasons thereof and also requiring the occupant (Sudeer) of the vehicle to produce documents relating to import, duty payment and registration of the vehicle. The said officers referred the detained vehicle to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar, who analyzed the vehicle's chassis under their Laboratory No.SV-30651 dated 15-12-1999 and, vide their Endt. No.18580/FSL dated 18-12-1999, reported that after chemical treatment the Chassis plate bearing number HDJ81-0057203 was found to have been welded and refitted. Since the report indicated that the vehicle had a tampered (Welded and Refitted) chassis plate/number, the Customs officers seized the detained vehicle on 18-12-1999 as a duty evaded and smuggled one and informed the accused Sudeer of the seizure and the reasons thereof vide their letter C. No. Cus (SCS) 47/99/13357 dated 22-12-1999 accordingly. Vide his Notice C. No. Coll/ADJ/01/2000/501 dated 21-1-2000, the learned Collector required Mehdi Khan son of Ahmad Khan (Owner) and Sudeer son of Mutabar (occupant) to show cause why penal/confiscation action should not be taken under clauses 8 and 89 of section 156 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969. After hearing Mr. Gulab Shah, Advocate and Malik Nisar on behalf of the accused persons and Pir Alam Shah and Mr. Said Zaman, on behalf of the seizing agency, the learned Collector passed his impugned Order-in-Original No.13/2000 holding that the offence charged was established and ordering outright confiscation of the vehicle under clauses 8, 89 and 90 of section 156 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969". We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The issue as to whether in the absence of any evidence led by the seizing agency to show that vehicle in question was smuggled into Pakistan without payment of leviable duties, mere fact that chassis number was refitted would justify forfeiture/confiscation of the vehicle stands decided by this Court in various judgments which in turn have been maintained by august Supreme Court. To name a few, in S.A.O. No.49 of 2005 decided on 22-11-2005 this Court held that: "Where Customs authorities had no evidence that the vehicle in question was smuggled in/imported into Pakistan without payment of leviable duties and where to the contrary bill of entry was confirmed, mere fact that chassis number was refitted and in absence of any evidence that with such chassis number some other vehicle is plying, the seizure, forfeiture/confiscation of the vehicle would thus be beyond the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities". This judgment was assailed before august Supreme Court through Civil Petition No.117 of 2006, but leave to appeal was declined by apex Court vide judgment dated 27-2-2006. Judgment in S.A.O. No.49 of 2005 was followed by this Court in Cr.M.No.89 of 2005 decided on 28-4-2006. In view of above judgments of this Court endorsed by august Supreme Court, we have no other option but to allow this appeal. The order and judgment of adjudicating authority dated 27-5-2000 and that of learned Tribunal dated 20-12-2005 are set aside. Resultantly, the vehicle shall be released unconditionally to the petitioner, if the same is not required in any other case. A.R.K./142/P Appeal accepted.