Frivolous complaint

Record revealed that the complainant deliberately under invoiced and misdeclared the value of goods as evident from the invoice found from the container during examination of the consignment indicating value of the goods as AED 510,952 (Rs. 39,951,677/- (C&F), instead of AED 42,013.40 (Rs.3,285,056) as declared by the complainant

On detection of this huge misdeclaration and under invoicing of AED 468,939/-i.e. PKR 36.6 million approximately the Department proceeded with issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN); adjudication was conducted as per law and the impugned goods were confiscated vide Order-in-Original, however, giving an option to the complainant to pay redemption fine to the tune of 35% and also imposed personal penalties of Rs.0.2 million each on complainant and his clearing agent but the complainant instead of availing the option of filing an appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal, approached FTO forum anticipating to hoodwink FTO office by portraying his invalid innocence and tried to get relief ; which established the mens rea on part of the complainant who attempted to defraud the national exchequer by under invoicing his consignment to the tune of Rs.36.6 million approx. in value due to sheer malafide and then instead of availing the redemption choice further continued with his sinister designs to misguide FTO office

No maladministration could be attributed towards the Customs Department, however, the mala fide, mens rea and tainted approach of the complainant on the other hand stood established against the complainant on charges of criminal breach of trust and for cheating the State and the FTO Office as well as the Department of Customs

FTO imposed a penalty of Rs.01 million upon the complainant under the provisions of S. 22(2) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000

Complaint, filed by importer, was dismissed accordingly.

Applicant admitted that respondent sold suit property to proposed contemnor who constructed fourth floor on the roof of third floor without approved plan

Applicant alleged that construction of fourth floor was in utter disregard of order dated 17-8-2009, passed by High Court

Validity

Additional construction of fourth floor was carried on after order dated 17-8-2009, by new purchaser of roof of third floor who was not party in Constitutional petition

No restraining order was passed by High Court that no additional construction on roof of third floor would take place

Proposed contemnor did not disobey / violate order dated 17-8-2009, passed by High Court in any manner

Filing of contempt application was nothing but to cause harassment to proposed contemnor who had no concern with the property subject matter of Constitutional petition and official respondents had already complied with the order of High Court in letter and spirit

Applicant had filed frivolous application and had wasted precious time of High Court, therefore, cost was imposed on him

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.