Adjudicating authority

2025 PTD 377 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(s), 156(1)(89) & 187SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009SmugglingRelease of confiscated goodsAdjudicating AuthorityPowersScopeAdjudicating Authority set-aside Show-Cause Notice qua confiscation of petroleum product

Department filed Special Reference Application as the Customs Appellate Tribunal concurred with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority

Plea of the respondent was that it was dealing in High Speed Diesel (HSD)as an authorized dealer of an Oil Marketing Company (OMC)

Validity

Record revealed that after issuance of Show-Cause Notice , the respondents produced relevant documents regarding the purchase of HSD-in -question and also brought on record verification / letter from the concerned OMC whereby it was confirmed that the respondent was their authorized distributor

Adjudicating Authority then passed the order in favour of the respondent and vacated the Show-Cause Notice

Subsequently, the Department went into appeal and the order of the Adjudicating Authority was set aside

Respondents then appealed the order before the Customs Appellate Tribunal and impugned order was passed

No question of the law arose out of order in question inasmuch as the facts stood determined at the adjudication level, when confirmation was sought from the OMC

No interference by the High Court was made out in its reference jurisdiction

Special Customs Reference Application, filed by the Department, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PTD 1045 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(a), 32, 80, 83, 193, 193A & 195Customs Rules, 2001, R. 438S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2002, dated 15-06-2002Adjudicating authorityAssessmentChecking of goods declaration by CustomsClearance of goodsAppealProcedureShow-cause noticeJurisdictionPast and closed transactionScopeAppellant imported consignment comprising of several kinds of fabricAppellant, importer filed goods declaration; Assessing Officer examined the goods and passed assessment ordersInbuilt delegated authority of Customs Computerized System passed clearance order in terms of S. 83, Customs Act, 1969

Appellant approached the terminal operator for delivery of goods who showed his inability to deliver due to the fact that Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) had blocked the goods declaration

Appellant approached Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) who informed that goods in question seemed to be of Indian origin and re-examination was required

Re-examination was conducted and it revealed the same result as that of earlier assessment order

Despite the very fact Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) detained the consignment under S. 186, Customs Act, 1969 on the basis that the goods were of Indian origin and as such were not importable under Appendix G to the Import Policy Order, 2013

Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) framed contravention report and forwarded the same to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) for issuance of show-cause notice

Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudication) confiscated the goods and imposed penalty equivalent to the value of goods

Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal

Validity

Once an assessment order was passed, it could not be disturbed by any authority by preparing contravention report

Only course available to the Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) was to challenge the assessment order before Collector of Customs (Appeals)

Collector of Customs (Appeals) could issue show-cause notice to the appellant/importer under S. 32, Customs Act, 1969

Instead of adhering to the prescribed method, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) reopened the assessment/ clearance order under S. 195, Customs Act, 1969, under which no powers were vested either with Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) or Assistant Collector of Customs (Adjudicated)

By virtue of non-filing of appeal against the assessment order, transaction attained finality and became past and closed transaction which could not be disturbed

Appellate Tribunal vacated the show-cause notice and set aside the order passed thereon.

2019 PTD 1045 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 80, 2(a), 4 & 180Import Policy Order, 2013, Appendix-G & para 5(B)(iii) Sr. Nos. 357 & 358,S.R.O. No.371(I)/2002, dated 15-06-2002Import of goods of Indian originChecking of goods declarationAdjudicating AuthorityPowers and duties of officers of CustomsShow-cause noticeScopeAssistant Collector of Customs issued show-cause notice and confiscated appellant's imported goodsValidityCases of goods of Indian origin had to be dealt with by competent authority at the time of passing assessment orderPrincipal Appraiser had the jurisdiction in terms of S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2002, dated 15-06-2002 to adjudicate such cases

Show-cause notice issued by Assistant Collector of Customs was usurpation of the powers of his subordinate, the Principal Appraiser, which he could only exercise under S. 4, Customs Act, 1969, during the course of administrative work and not for the purpose of adjudication

Show-cause notice was held to have been issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction.

2014 PTD 199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.179 & 2(a)Adjudicating authorityPower of adjudicationImport of goodsEnhancement of valueScope

Issue of valuation was adjudicated upon by Assistant Collector who found that the value of goods had been understated and directed the respondent / importer to pay different amount for customs duties and taxes

Said order of Assistant Collector was set aside by Appellate Tribunal on the ground that under S.179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 the Assistant Collector did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter

Customs Department impugned said order of Appellate Tribunal

Validity

Perusal of S.179 of the Customs Act, 1969 revealed that each authority working under the hierarchy of the customs department had been assigned a job to perform its duties within the parameter as specifically provided under the law and said hierarchy did not include Assistant Collector

Admitted on the record that adjudication was done by Assistant Collector regarding an amount of Rupees 28,876,294 whereas under S.179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 the authority to adjudicate upon the case exceeding Rupees 15,000,00 vested only with the Collector

Order-in-original was therefore, without jurisdiction making the entire proceedings coram non judice

Any transgression to the responsibility assigned within the parameters of S.179(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 would render the entire exercise of authority ab initio void and illegal

Findings of Appellate Tribunal could not be interfered with

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.