2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar-ul-Majeed, Member (Technical) |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Mian Abdul Qayyum, Member (Judicial) and Zafar-ul-Majeed, Member (Technical).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jawwad Mehmood for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st April, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 156(1) & 89
S.R.O. 1374(1)/98, dated 17-12-1998-- Confiscation of cloth being foreign origin and non-duty paid without examination from the Textile Engineering Institute
Option for redemption was also not allowed
Appellant raised a serious dispute regarding the confiscated cloth being of local origin and also taking into consideration the fact that Adjudicating Officer did not have the same examined from the Textile Engineering Institute
Adjudicating Officer was directed to have the confiscated cloth examined from the Textile Engineering Institute in order to determine its origin, after associating the appellant or his representative and a representative of the detecting agency
Case was remanded for fresh decision according to law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence which they .may like to produce. Imran Tariq, D.R.
Judgment & Decree
3 F/O.Jalio Cloth 55 yards 4 F/O Valvet Cloth 156 yards 5 F./O Curtain Cloths 173 yards 6 Net Cloth in pieces 25 yards Total 1445 yards
2. It was seriously contended before us that the seized cloth was of local origin and that although first two items measuring 859 and 177 yards respectively carried stamps showing it to have been made in Korea and made in China/Korea but these were actually manufactured locally by the local manufacturing units at the instance of foreign importers and the stamps were affixed at the instance of foreign importers.
3. The perusal of the impugned order shows that no attempt was made by the learned Adjudicating Officer to determine origin of the confiscated cloth. The learned D.R. on being asked as to whether the confiscated cloth was got examined from Textile Engineering Institute, Faisalabad to determine its actual status replied in the negative.
4. Keeping in view the facts that the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a serious dispute regarding the confiscated cloth being of local origin and also taking into consideration the fact that the learned Adjudicating Officer did not have the same examined from the Textile Engineering Institute, Faisalabad, we find it to be a fit case for remand to the learned Adjudicating Officer for a fresh decision according to law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence which they may like to produce with a direction to have the confiscated cloth examined from the Textile Engineering Institute, Faisalabad in order to determine its origin, after associating the appellant or his representative and a representative of the detecting Agency in this exercise.