2007 PLP 896 (PTD)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus Mian MUHAMMAD FAROOQ
| Citation | 2007 PLP 896 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus Mian MUHAMMAD FAROOQ |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 896 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 896 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 896 (PTD) (COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus Mian MUHAMMAD FAROOQ). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Izhar ul Haq for Petitioner.
- Ahmed Awais for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 168 & 196
Vehicle in question was seized by Customs Authorities from the possession of respondent for having failed to establish lawful import thereof --Appeal filed by respondent against confiscation of vehicle was accepted by the Tribunal vide impugned order declaring confiscation of vehicle as invalid
Vehicle, in the meantime having been auctioned, the Tribunal directed that proceeds from said auction be given to respondent by way of compensation
During the course of proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer, respondent produced the bill of entry and other documents purportedly evidencing lawful import of said vehicle
Said documents were never got verified by Adjudicating Officer nor their authenticity was displaced
Tribunal, in circumstances concluded that Revenue had been unable to establish that chassis number of the vehicle in question was cut and welded or otherwise tampered with or proved that vehicle had not been lawfully imported
Such pure question of fact had already been determined by the Tribunal on the basis of material before it
Findings returned by the Tribunal were not perverse
No question of law having arisen requiring expression of opinion by High Court, appeal being devoid of any merit, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 arises from the judgment of the Tribunal, dated 4-10-2003 whereby the appeal filed by respondent was accepted.
2. Precisely, relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the captioned appeal are that a Mitsubishi Pajero was seized by Customs Authorities from the possession of the respondent for having failed to establish lawful import thereof. Show-cause notice was issued which was replied to by the respondent, whereafter order in original was passed directing outright confiscation of the vehicle. Being aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal and the Tribunal by means of order, dated 4-10-2003 impugned accepted the appeal declaring the confiscation of the vehicle as invalid. In the meantime, the vehicle in question had been auctioned, therefore, the Tribunal directed that the proceeds for said auction be given to respondent by way of compensation.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended herewith perused.
4. During the course of proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer, respondent produced the bill of entry and other documents purportedly evidencing lawful import of said vehicle. Said documents were never got verified by the Adjudicating Officer nor their authenticity displaced. It is the case of the respondent that in fact the chassis number of the vehicle had been cut and welded, therefore, documents did not pertain to the vehicle. Sole basis for the aforesaid assertion on behalf of respondent was the inspection report signed by three officers of the department. A report by the Forensic Expert was conspicuous by its absence. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that Revenue has been unable to establish that chassis number of the vehicle in question was cut and welded or otherwise tampered with or proved that the vehicle had not been lawfully imported.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in fact chassis number had been cut and welded. Such contention is a pure question of fact which has already been determined by the Tribunal on the basis of material before it. Findings returned by the Tribunal are not perverse. No question of law arises requiring expression of opinion by this Court. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./C-2/L Appeal dismissed.