2004 PLP (Trib (PTD)

Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2002. MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)‑‑‑This appeal is directed against the Order‑in‑Original No. 281 of 2001, dated 25‑5‑2001 passed by the learned Deputy Collector (Adjudication) Lahore.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of the appeal are that pursuant upon an information, the staff of Anti‑Smuggling Organization, Customs House, Lahore found four cartons lying at PIA Domestic Cargo Booking, Airport, Lahore on 18‑9‑2000 and since no one claimed ownership of these cartons, therefore these were opened and examined in presence of witnesses which led to recovery of four cartons of Remote Controls, Sony Band of foreign origin. These goods of foreign origin were, therefore, seized under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 and a show-cause notice was issued to Rana Ishfaq, Samad Daood and Rais Alam Khan. Out of these three persons Rais Alam Khan appeared before the learned Adjudicating Officer and stated that he had imported the seized goods against Bill of Entry No. 06496, dated 15‑9‑2000 and after import had sold the seized Remote Controls to the appellant. Photocopy of bill of entry bearing examination report alongwith copy of invoice and air‑way Bill No.214‑0456‑8465 were also produced to support the claim of lawful import of the seized goods. The learned Adjudicating Officer after scrutiny of the documents produced before him, found that these did not carry brand, marks and numbers of the seized remote controls whereas the seized remote controls carried the; brand name of Sony with specific model written thereon. The learned Adjudicating Officer, therefore, concluded that the documents produced in support of lawful import of the seizes goods did not connect these with the seized goods and therefore, confiscated the same in favour of the State holding that these were brought into the country in breach of restrictions and prohibitions for the time being in force by evading duty and taxes leviable thereon.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant stated that during the process of physical, examination of the imported goods, the Customs Authorities failed to incorporate the brand, marks and particulars of remote controls and that their failure to perform their duty properly and efficiently could not be a ground for confiscation of the imported goods as the fact of their lawful import was established from the bill of entry, invoice and air‑way bill produced before the learned Adjudicating Officer.

4. Learned D.R. has opposed this appeal.

5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have also examined the record. Admittedly the confiscated remote controls carry brand name Sony with specific model written of these remote controls whereas there is no mention either of brand, marks and numbers of the remote controls in the bill of entry and other documents relied upon by the appellant. These do not contain any such identification marks and in the absence of such details it is difficult rather impossible to connect the goods imported vide the bill of entry and other documents relied upon by the learned counsel with the goods confiscated in this case. The result is that we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which fulfils the legal requirements of a valid order.

6. The appeal being without merit is dismissed. C.M.A./142/Tax (Trib.) Appeal dismissed.