Afghan Transit Trade Agreement 1965

On physical examination, goods were found to be `ctarette paper' meant for use in manufacturing of cigarettes, not white% paper meant for writing purposes

Description of cigarette paper wags declared in GDs and omission in Afghan Transit Trade Invoices constituted an offence in terms of S.32 and S.129 of the Customs Act, 1969, punishable under Cls.(14) and (64) of S.156(1) of the Customs' Act, 1969

Validity

Contention of Department that omission disqualified the goods for transit was not maintainable

Customs at the Port had explained that "these consignments were not subject to examination by the selectivity criteria of the computer system at the port of entry, but, 'all the consignments were examined at the port of exit"-Such explanation was not plausible because, while allowing transit, GDs and Afghan Transit Trade Invoices were simultaneously filed in accordance with the requirements of Public Notice No.16/2000(A) dated 30-9-2000

Data entry operator was required to feed all the particulars of the GDs and Afghan Transit Trade Invoices, and make the required corrections, if any

In case of discrepancy, the documents were returned to the Clearing Agent for necessary corrections

Appraisement staff in the Customs House and the Customs examination staff at the port were similarly required to identify discrepancies, if any

Failure of the Customs at the Port to identify the discrepancy involved in the material particulars of transit goods through all stages of Customs process reflected neglect and inefficiency on their part.

Six containers comprising 2084 cartons of cigarette paper and filter paper were imported by the Afghan Firm (petitioner) from France and Austria for Afghanistan-Consignment arrived at Karachi through sea for onward transit to Afghanistan through Pakistan

Under Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965, goods arriving at Karachi or any other Port imported for Afghanistan were to cross the country and border of Pakistan without payment of Customs, Excise duties or any other charges except those mentioned in the said Agreement of 1965 executed between the two countries

Goods having been released from Karachi for transit to Afghanistan on payment of demurrage charges reached Peshawar Custom Dry Port, where once again the same had been detained by the Customs Department

Validity

Afghan Transit Trade Agreement of 1965 was in existence and in the absence of any amendment or redrafting of such Agreement, department had got no lawful authority to detain the petitioner's consignment

Apprehension of the department about the goods in transit being smuggled back to Pakistan might be factually correct, but on legal premises courts of law were to apply and interpret the law as it existed

Action taken by Authorities in detaining the goods in transit to Afghanistan was consequently declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the direction to them to release the detained goods forthwith.

Import of goods by Afghan national was ordered to be detained and then seized by Customs Authorities of Pakistan on the ground of non-production of Letter of Credit by the importer

Validity

Transit Agreement and Annexure thereto. did not require tlfe\production of Letter of Credit for clearance of transit goods by the Customs Authorities but the only documents required to be produced at-the time of arrival -of goods was the invoice

Afghanistan being a land-locked country, goods imported by Afghan Nationals from other countries for use or consumption in Afghanistan could not be said to have been imported into Pakistan merely because goods crossed the customs barrier and entered into Pakistan, though to be transited to their designation viz. Afghanistan

Said goods, in fact, are goods in transit to be dealt with and transhiped to Afghanistan in accordance with the Pakistan Afghanistan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 and Protocol appended thereto

Customs law relating to the importation of goods would not, therefore, be applicable to such goods

Alleged smuggling of the goods into Pakistan could not furnish any valid interpretation to the Authorities to unilaterally take away the facility of transit or to impose any restriction on the duty free import itself which was guaranteed by the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement

Goods having been illegally and wrongfully detained and not allowed to be transited to Afghanistan, direction by High Court to Collector of Customs to issue delay/detention certificate was quite just and fair

Central Board of Revenue and/or the Collector of Customs thus could not ban/disallow import of goods by Afghan nationals under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 during the subsistence of the said Agreement.