2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ali Sain Dino Metlo, Member (Judicial-II) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Ali Sain Dino Metlo, Member (Judicial-II).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Awan for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.194, 194-A, 207 & 209
Imposition of penalty upon customs, agent
Appellant, who was customs agent, had challenged order passed by Additional Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise imposing penalty upon him for mis-declaring description and value of imported goods
Appellant had claimed that he had no knowledge about the actual description of goods and that he had filed the bill of entry on the basis of customs documents i.e. the invoice and the bill of lading provided to him by the importer
Nothing was available to show that appellant had any knowledge about actual description of the goods so as to say that he had prepared and filed the bill of entry knowingly on the basis of incorrect documents
Indeed, there was no such finding or even allegation against the appellant
Customs agent was required to prepare the bill of entry correctly on the basis of documents provided to him, which had been done in the case
Appellant/customs agent could not be held responsible for any misdeed of the importer, unless he was shown to be in collusion with him, which was not the case here
Imposition of penalty upon appellant was not proper and impugned order to that extent was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
2. Glazed, paper 53 grams. 4802.5200 3000 Kgs. $ 800/MT $ 4080
3. Tissue paper 4803.1000 10,000 Kgs. $ 1000/MT $ 10201
4. Both side coated paper 60 grams 4810.1100 1500 Kgs. $ 700/MT $ 1071 The total value was assessed at Rs.1,009,491.00 as against declared Rs.411,767.00. Moreover, the goods being of stock-lot quality, their import was banned under the import policy. After giving show cause notice to the importer as well as the customs agent the impugned order was passed under which the importer was found guilty of multiple mis-declarations and a penalty equal to 150% of the assessed value was imposed upon him and the goods were confiscated with option to get them redeemed on payment of fine equal to 15% of the value of the goods in addition to leviable duty and taxes. A penalty of Rs.50,000 was imposed upon the customs agent i.e. the appellant for filing false documents.
4. The appeal filed by the importer bearing No. Cus. 533/2001 was dismissed by this Bench of the Tribunal on 17-6-2002 and his Civil Special Customs Appeal No. 164 of 2002 is said to be pending in the High Court of Sindh.
5. The main contention of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Awan, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant had no knowledge about the actual description of the goods and he had filed the bill of entry on the basis of customs documents i.e. the invoice and the bill of lading provided to him by the importer. There is nothing to show that the appellant had any knowledge about the actual description of the goods so as to say that he had prepared and filed the bill of entry knowingly on the basis of incorrect documents. Indeed, there is no such finding or even allegation against him. A customs agent is required to prepare the bill of entry correctly on the basis of documents provided to him, which has been done in the present case. He cannot be held responsible for any misdeed of the importer, unless he is shown to be in collusion with him, which is not the case here. Therefore, the imposition of penalty upon the appellant is not proper and the impugned order to that extent is set aside and the appeal is accordingly disposed of as allowed.
6. Inform all concerned.