Smuggling

An LPG bowser was found parked at a road side ; on search, foreign-origin High Speed Diesel/HSD was found in hidden cavities / a separate hole made in the roof of LPG bowser for transportation through vehicle-in-question

On the strength of the registration book found inside the vehicle-in-question, the petitioner being the owner was proceeded against, resulting in confiscation of both HSD and vehicle-in-question

Plea / defence of the petitioner / owner , seeking release of vehicle-in-question was that at the relevant time the vehicle-in-question, under an agreement , was with someone for transportation and that he was unaware of the smuggling of the goods i.e. foreign-origin HSD

Validity

Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act 1969') unambiguously talks about the confiscation of the conveyance of whatever kind used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under the Act, 1969

Proviso to subsection (2) of section 157 of the Act, 1969 only caters for its release by an authorized officer of the customs as required by the prescribed rules pending adjudication of the goods involving its confiscation, subject to furnishing sufficient guarantee from the scheduled bank for due production of the conveyance at any time and place it is required by the appropriate officer to be produced

Subsection (3) of section 157 of the Act, 1969 also related to confiscation of vessel which includes, tackle, apparel and furniture

The distinction, however , was made in terms of the S.R.O. 499(I) / 2009, dated 13.06.2009 issued under first proviso to section 181 of S.R.O. 499(I) /2009,dated 13.06.2009 and such relaxation was not available where conveyance was found carrying smuggled goods in specially made cavities, hidden or being used exclusively and wholly for the transportation of the smuggled goods and where such activity was apparent

A hire agreement produced at the Tribunal stage was only a contract between two private persons and would not be convincing for the Court to take any different view, however, under the reference jurisdiction the High Court rightly discarded the effect of such agreement as nothing was produced in the two forums below

The burden to prove that the owner had no nexus with the smuggled goods or with such transaction and transportation was on the petitioner himself and which had not been discharged satisfactorily at all

Nothing was disclosed as to what amount was received by the petitioner under the contract nor the motor registration wing was informed of such contract as required under Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969

Surprisingly, the registration book was also found inside the vehicle, though an authority letter in said regard for driving the vehicle could have been sufficient as registration book was an important document to claim title

Petitioner had also not satisfactorily discharged the burden that the hidden cavities or the separate hole made in the roof of LPG bowser for purposes of transporting goods was not in his knowledge and that such "rebuilding" of the LPG bowser has rendered its use for the transportation of LPG as unfit

When the petitioner had failed to disclose the disconnect between smuggled goods managed through his vehicle having special cavities for the transportation of the smuggled goods it would not leave the option to the owner to pay fine rather fell in the proviso to the Section 157(2) of Act, 1969 and, consequently, such options were not available

Thus, no case was made out to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court

Petition to leave to appeal was dismissed.

If petitioner/accused was not found entitled to bail under S. 497(1) Cr.P.C., the Courts below should have considered bail application on its own merits taking into account the petitioner's background, nature of offence and likelihood of abscondence

Prosecution had already gathered all necessary evidence and petitioner/accused was no more required for custodial interrogation

Keeping petitioner/accused in jail without Court verdict would be equivalent to convicting her without due process

Bail was allowed.

Customs Department filed Reference Application as Customs Appellate Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original, whereby the diesel was ordered to be confiscated but an option was given to the owner of the bus to redeem the seized bus on payment of redemption fine equivalent to 20% along with personal penalty of Rs.25000

Contention of the Applicant / Department was that the option to redeem the vehicle, which was used for smuggling by the owner himself, could not be given

Validity

Record revealed the bus (vehicle), when intercepted and confiscated , was found containing non-duty paid 6080 liters diesel oil ; and, at the time, the owner himself was driving the said vehicle

It was beyond comprehension that how the owner of the bus, who was driving the same, could be said to be not aware of the fact that the said bus was having secret inbuilt cavities in which smuggled non-duty paid diesel oil was present

When the Customs Officials intercepted and seized the bus, the said owner immediately offered that he was ready to pay the duty and taxes in respect of the smuggled diesel oil

Reading of SRO 499(I)/2009 along with Ss. 181 & 157 of the Customs Act, 1969, left no room for doubt that only in those cases option is available to the owner who is said to be not aware that smuggling is being carried out in his vehicle

However, in present case, it was the owner himself who was driving the bus, hence no leave could be given to the owner on the basis of the fact that he was not aware of the secret inbuilt cavities available in the bus

SRO 499(I)/2009 provides release of the goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty to a registered owner but when it is found that the vehicle is carrying offending goods, the said vehicle is not liable to be released upon payment of fine

Customs Appellate Tribunal was not justified in directing release of the vehicle upon payment of redemption fine

Answer to the question was given in "Negative" i.e. in favour of the Applicant / Department and against the respondent

High Court set-aside impugned order passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal

Special Customs Reference Application, filed by the Department, was allowed accordingly.

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.

Department filed Reference as the cloths (goods-in-question)alleged to be smuggled were ordered to be released by the Customs Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal')

Plea of the respondent was that entire record including purchase receipts had been presented, which proved that the goods-in-question were not smuggled ones

Validity

Perusal of the finding of the Tribunal reflected that though the Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the Adjudicating Officer had failed to discuss or record an independent finding to the extent of the respondents' claim, but at the same time, instead of remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, the appeal had been allowed

This had been done by the Tribunal without even recording its own finding of fact as to the claim of the respondent that he had purchased the goods from open market and was in lawful possession of the same

Moreover, perusal of the order passed by the adjudicating officer, further revealed that various respondents had contested the matter before the said officer, but while passing the Order-in-Original the case of each respondent had not been discussed in any manner

Impugned order passed by the Tribunal had been passed in a cursory and generalized manner and without attending to the case of each respondent, therefore, the proper course which was required to be adopted by the Tribunal was either to record its own finding of fact to the extent of the contesting respondent, or to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration, which had not been done, thus the impugned order could not be sustained

Proposed questions of law to the extent of the present respondent were answered in favour of the applicant /Department and against respondent

High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating officer who shall decide the case of the present respondent after examining the material already placed on record with an opportunity of hearing through a reasoned order

Customs Special Reference Application, filed by the Department, was disposed of accordingly.

Department filed reference application against the judgment/order passed by the Appellate Tribunal whereby the appeal preferred by the owner was allowed

Allegation/contention of the Department was that chassis number of the seized vehicle on the chemical examination of vehicle was found refitted with welded material and was decipherable

Validity

Although the chassis number of vehicle-in-question before and after chemical examination was found different, but it was equally true that initially (before the sale to the respondent) the said vehicle was examined by the Customs Inspector/Examiner who found no tempering in its chassis number and issued NOC for registration of the same in the office of concerned Motor Registration Authority ('MRA'), after receiving all leviable taxes and duties

After observing all legal and codal formalities, the vehicle was allotted a registration number, thereafter, the said vehicle was sold to the respondent

In said backdrop of the case, submission of documents of the vehicle duly issued by MRA, by the respondent to the Department/Applicant, was substantial compliance of the burden of proof required under the provision of the S. 187 of the Customs Act, 1969; thus shifting burden to the Department, who hadto fulfill the legal burden of proof against the respondent to have smuggled the vehicle into Pakistan in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, on fulfillment thereof, the burden would shift to the respondent that he was in possession of anything with lawful authority or under a permit or license or any other documents, prescribed by any law for time being in force, the burden of proving such fact that had such license, permit or authority shall be upon him (respondent)

Following said principle of law in the present case, the respondent by producing motor vehicle registration document had successfully discharged his burden which was on his part

Respondent was a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle, documents/registration of which was neither disputed nor challenged

At no stage of the proceedings any iota of evidence was produced that the vehicle was unlawfully imported to Pakistan, there was no burden left upon the respondent that vehicle-in-question was not lawfully imported

High Court maintained the judgment passed by the Tribunal

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

Applicants who were going abroad entered the Customs Hall and presented their accompanied baggage and traveling documents to the officers of Customs for examination

As required under S. 139 of the Customs Act, 1969, the officers asked them if they were carrying anything objectionable such as narcotics or currency in their accompanied baggage, to which they replied negatively; they were also asked to provide a written declaration about the foreign currency they were carrying and they declared that they were carrying only UAE Dirham 2500/

However, during the baggage inspection, 8 packets of different foreign currencies and 12 notes of UAE Dirham were found, for which the applicants failed to produce any evidence to support their lawful export or possession

As a result, the applicants were issued a show-cause notice, which led to the passing of an order-in-original whereby the foreign currency was confiscated and a penalty was imposed upon the applicants

Appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was later dismissed

Applicants did not make any declaration regarding the recovered foreign currency, nor did they provide any document to show that the currency was obtained from an authorized dealer after obtaining permission from the State Bank of Pakistan

Findings of the Appellate Tribunal were final and not subject to further examination by the High Court

Reference application was decided against the applicants.

40,500 kgs of assorted brands and foreign origin cloth were seized from a godown and an order for outright confiscation of the seized goods was passed by the Adjudicating Authority

Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('the Tribunal') permitted release of the goods on payment of duty and taxes, against which judgment the Department filed Reference Application

Plea of applicant / Department was that goods-in-question were smuggled goods as the respondent had failed to provide any lawful defence as to the charge of smuggling in respect of the seized goods

Validity

Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that 60% of the quantity of the seized goods consisted foreign origin cloth, and once there is an admission that no substantial documents were produced as to the ownership and payment of duty and taxes on the seized goods, then there is no occasion for the Tribunal to permit or allow release of the said goods on payment of duty and taxes

Goods were either smuggled or lawfully imported; and once a conclusion has been drawn that the goods were not lawfully imported, otherwise duty and taxes were not to be paid, then 60% of the seized goods were nothing but smuggled goods

The release of smuggled goods (which stood confiscated) on payment of duty and taxes, and that too without any redemption of the said goods did not appear to be correct and supported by any provisions of law

Confiscation and redemption of seized goods is covered by S. 181 of the Act, read with SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009

Moreover FBR had also notified the goods in question as goods falling within the contemplation of S. 2(s)(i) of the Act, vide SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 6.6.2005

Requirement to give option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of confiscated goods is not absolute and is subject to the Notification issued by FBR under S. 181, and the order of the Tribunal for imposition of redemption fine in lieu of outright confiscation of smuggled goods was unlawful and in violation of S. 181 of the Customs Act, 1969

Tribunal, in the present case, had failed to appreciate the law and passed the impugned judgment in a very slipshod manner

Such conduct on the part of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated which is in fact a special Tribunal created under the Act

Extra care ought to have been taken by the Tribunal in passing such orders which on the face of it appeared to be in violation of the Customs Act, 1969

Impugned judgment could not sustain to the extent of 60% of the goods in question i.e. foreign origin goods which were admittedly smuggled goods warranting an outright confiscation

High Court set-aside/modified the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal to the extent of 60% foreign origin goods and the order of the Adjudicating authority is restored to that extent

Reference Application, filed by the Department, was allowed, in circumstances.

Transporting of a huge quantity (35000 liters) of Iranian Origin High Speed Diesel (HSD) in tanker (vehicle-in-question)

No option of paying fine in lieu of confiscation

Applicant/ Department assailed judgment passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal')whereby the tanker seized in the process of transporting smuggled HSD ('vehicle-in-question') was ordered to be released unconditionally, allowing appeal filed by the respondent (owner of the vehicle-in-question)

Validity

Once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle-in-question was carrying smuggled HSD oil, and it was also intercepted lawfully by the applicant/department, then perhaps the contrary findings in respect of (two) other points of difference (i.e. regarding exclusively usage / release of the tanker-in-question in transportation of smuggled / confiscated HSD oil could not have been arrived at in favour of respondent

If the oil tanker in question was carrying smuggled HSD Oil, then as a corollary it was involved in exclusive transportation of smuggled goods

In terms of SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by S.181 of the Customs Act, 1969, it has been directed that no option shall be given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of (a) smuggled goods falling under clause (s) of S. 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969); and (b) lawfully registered conveyance including packages and containers found carrying smuggled goods in false cavities or being used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offending goods under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969

Once it was not denied that the vehicle-in-question was carrying smuggled HSD Oil, then it was liable to be confiscated outrightly

It could not, even be released against payment of any redemption fine

Appeal of Respondent No.2 ought to have been dismissed as the FBR had powers to prescribe conditions in respect of outright confiscation and redemption fine

Relevant question was answered in negative in favour of the applicant and against respondent/(owner of the vehicle-in-question)

High Court set-aside the order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal

Special Customs Reference Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea of the owner of vehicle (crane)was that manual punching of the chassis number did not suggest any act of tampering/manipulation of the chassis as the concerned local auto manufacturing/assembling company invariably inscribed the chassis numbers on its locally produced chassis frames by way of manual proficiency

Validity

Appellant ( owner of vehicle in question) ,at the initial stage of adjudication, had discharged his burden of proof by placing on record the basis of registration of the vehicle-in-question evidencing that the same was purchased from the concerned local manufacturing / assembling company, which (company) invariably used to punch / inscribe the chassis numbers on locally produced vehicles by way of manual proficiency

Appellant had openly offered , at adjudication proceedings, to get documents and said aspect (manual punching) checked from the company but the needful was not done, and even, in memo. of appeal and verbally, he had reiterated his offer

Respondent / Collectorate had not come forward to respond to said offer, which indicated deviation from provision / principle provided under S.187 of the Customs Act, 1969

With the appellant having discharged his burden of proof, it was on the respondents /Collectorate to controvert the same

Respondents had failed to negate the registration of vehicle with the concerned Registration Authority as sufficient proof, and also that as per Laboratory Report no new chassis number was deciphered

Evidence produced by the appellant in form of various certificates confirmed that such local manufacturers (assemblers) did punch / inscribe the chassis numbers through manual proficiency (by hand) and not through computerized machine

Even Forensic Science Laboratory, as incorporated in relevant Show-Cause Notice, did not suggest any act of tampering

In absence of any report that digits of the chassis were disturbed by making any tampering with it, the confiscation of locally assembled vehicle was not in accordance with law and facts

Customs Appellate Tribunal set-aside impugned Show-Cause Notice as well as Order-in-Original while directing the respondents to release the vehicle-in-question (crane) unconditionally

Appeal, filed by the owner of vehicle, was allowed accordingly.

Local commission was duly appointed on the request of appellant to independently verify the factual position of goods as to whether the confiscated goods were locally manufactured or not

Local Commission Report as well as photographs of the producing manufacturer and certificate of Chamber of Commerce furnished by the appellant/claimant had verified that the seized goods were locally manufactured and were not of foreign origin

Respondent/Department had failed to prove the allegation of foreign origin/ smuggled cloth as leveled in Show-Cause Notice and impugned order

Customs Appellate Tribunal set-aside impugned order-in-original and directed the Respondent/Department to release the impugned cloth to the appellant

Appeal was allowed.

If a person has been found without lawful excuse in possession of smuggled goods he would be dealt with under Cl. (89) of S. 156(1) and if the evidence produced by the prosecution establishes that accused was smuggling the goods outside or into Pakistan, then he would be liable to be dealt with under Cl. (8) of S. 156(1) and in such circumstances, would not be punished, under Cl. (89) of S. 156(1)

Thus, Cl. (8) applies in relation to the very act (or acts together) which constitute the offence of smuggling

As S. 2(s) makes clear, this would include an attempt to smuggle and/or an abetment or connivance thereof

Clause (89) on the other hand applies to, or at, the stage when the offence of smuggling is already complete

Such difference can also be understood by noting that in Cl. (8), the word "smuggled" is used as a verb, whereas in Cl.(89), it is used in a descriptive sense as part of the expression "smuggled goods" (i.e. as an adjectival participle or verb adjective to indicate a past or completed action)

If the act or offense of smuggling is proven, even if it occurred a long time ago, it is crucial to establish whether the goods in question are considered "smuggled goods" and whether S.2(s) is applicable

This determination determines whether Cl. (89) or (90) should be applied

Clause (89) applies to smuggled goods, and clause (90) applies to those goods to which the former does not apply, i.e., those which are not smuggled goods

It necessarily follows from this that clauses (89) and (90) cannot simultaneously, be held to apply to the facts and circumstances of a particular case

Either the goods involved are smuggled goods, or they are not

Determination on order that concludes that both clauses apply, or purports to hold a person liable in terms of both, is bad in law and cannot be sustained

Furthermore, when Cl. (89) is examined, it is seen that it applies to "smuggled goods" in two distinct situations

Firstly, it applies when it has been determined that the goods are indeed smuggled goods

But, secondly, it also applies when there is a "reasonable suspicion" that the goods are smuggled goods

This obviously sets or requires a lower threshold, but it is important to note that the focus must still be on the goods being smuggled goods

Thus, when clauses (89) and (90) are considered together, three situations emerge: (i) the goods can be smuggled; or (ii) there may be reasonable suspicion that the goods are smuggled goods; or (iii) the goods are those to which neither (i) nor (ii) apply

The first two contingencies come within clause (89) and the third within clause (90)

For a lawful determination to be made when a question arises in relation to any goods as to whether customs duty and other taxes leviable thereon have been evaded or that such goods have been brought into Pakistan in breach of any prohibition or restriction, it must be carefully considered whether (i) the goods are smuggled goods, or (ii) are those in respect of which there can be a reasonable suspicion that they are smuggled goods

For this purpose, the definition of smuggling in S. 2(s) must be carefully considered in order to determine whether it applies in the facts and circumstances of the particular case

If the answer is in the affirmative then (and only then) clause (89) applies

If not, then it is only clause (90) that can be applied

Onus of such determination lies on the customs authorities.

Smuggling means bringing into or taking out of Pakistan in breach of any prohibition or restriction or evading payment of customs duties and taxes.

Appellant assailed order-in-original passed by Collector of Customs (Adjudication) whereby his vehicle was confiscated for being smuggled

Contention of appellant was that he was a subsequent purchaser of vehicle from open market after verification of its legality

Validity

There was no indication that the appellant was involved in the act of smuggling

Nothing was available on record to show collusion between the appellant and the owner of smuggled goods

Vehicle was not intercepted in an area notified under S. 177 of the Customs Act, 1969

Vehicle in question was purchased by the appellant after due verification set forth under S. 25 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965

Subject vehicle was more than 15 years old and the import record could not be obtained after lapse of period of more than 10 years

Department was directed to release the vehicle unconditionally to the appellant

Appeal was allowed.

Mala fide and mens rea are necessary ingredients for committing any offence, including that of smuggling.

Section 2(s) of Customs Act, 1969, could not have been invoked, which was criminal in nature and required higher standard of proof or evidence instead of departmental presumption

Appellant had discharged initial burden regarding lawful possession of alleged goods in terms of S. 187 of the Customs Act, 1969, by producing proper receipt of purchase of goods from the local market

Receipt was discarded by the department without verifying the same, hence, it could be presumed under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, that had the department verified the same, result would have been different

Department had not associated any independent witness at the time of preparation of mashirnama as per requirement of S.103, Cr.P.C.

Appeal was allowed, impugned orders were modified to the extent that the goods be released on payment of leviable duty and taxes along with 20% redemption fine of the ascertained value.

Neither the smuggled goods nor the carrier (coach) was produced before the Trial Court, which were required to be produced by the prosecution in support of its version

None of the passengers of the coach nor its conductor were associated as witness by the Investigating Officer

Benefit of such doubt was not extended in favour of the accused by the Trial Court at the time of recording conviction of the accused, for which he was entitled

Impugned judgment suffered from mis-reading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of law and evidence, which was not sustainable

Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused persons were taken into custody by the Immigration and Customs staff at International Airport on their arrival and that they in their baggage were carrying smuggled items

No bag tag as well as information qua the subject bags' booking in the name of accused persons was available on record

Investigation Agency could not take into possession CCTV footage or video from the system installed at the airport to prove recovery of baggage from accused persons' possession

Value of the items recovered was assessed at Rs.32,000,000/- approximately but the Investigating Officer had remained unable to point out the availability or reference of method/formula or any document according to which the value was determined prior to registration of the case

Even name of the person who had assessed the goods' value for the complainant was not given in the file while said aspect of the case was very much relevant with regard to quantum of sentence of imprisonment provided by different provisions of Customs Act, 1969

Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry into their guilt entitling them to the grant of post-arrest bail

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused persons were taken into custody by the immigration and customs staff at International Airport on their arrival and that they in their baggage were carrying smuggled items

No bag tag as well as information qua the subject bags' booking in the name of accused persons was available on record

Investigation Agency could not take into possession CCTV footage or video from the system installed at the airport to prove recovery of baggage from accused persons' possession

Value of the items recovered was assessed at Rs.32,000,000/- approximately but the Investigating Officer had remained unable to point out the availability or reference of method/formula or any document according to which the value was determined prior to registration of the case

Even name of the person who had assessed the goods' value for the complainant was not given in the file while said aspect of the case was very much relevant with regard to quantum of sentence of imprisonment provided by different provisions of Customs Act, 1969

Case of accused persons was one of further inquiry into their guilt entitling them to the grant of post-arrest bail

Bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the FIA conducted raid at a house and recovered 170 bags of ketamine, tactfully concealed in bags of rice meant for export

Accused was arrested as he was present at the spot

Challan of the case was not filed in any court, therefore, the accused approached High Court for seeking bail

Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling) had not entertained the report of the police and had returned the same

Investigating Officer, thereafter, reportedly attempted to submit the challan in the court established under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but it was not accepted for want of jurisdiction

Validity

Section 72 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, envisaged that prohibition and restriction imposed under the Act on import, export of narcotic drug, psychotropic substances would be deemed to be prohibitions and restrictions imposed under the Customs Act, 1969, and the provisions of said Act would apply

First proviso stipulated that notwithstanding anything contained in any law including the Customs Act, 1969, all the offences relating to narcotic drugs would be tried under the provision of the Act

Second proviso, which appeared to be aimed at meeting any investigation related exigency in that regard, elucidated that where an Officer of Customs apprehended a person involved in any such offence, he would be empowered to carry out inquiry or investigation in the manner as an officer authorized under this Act, which meant that if an offence of smuggling in terms of Customs Act, 1969, was committed in respect of any narcotic drug, etc. the scheme under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would come into play and the accused would be dealt with under the provisions of said Act

Arrest and investigation by an officer not strictly authorized by the Act would stand legitimized as having been done by an officer under the Act

Outcome of such investigation for conducting a trial would be the subject matter of the Act and would be looked into by a Court established under the Act

Combined reading of Ss. 74 & 76 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, jointly provided an overriding character of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in the matters of punishment to an accused involved in narcotics cases and applicability of its provisions notwithstanding anything contained in any other law

Even in the face of any conflict between provisions of said Act and other laws criminalizing an action, its consequence, and the medium to deliver or enforce it, provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would prevail over the other law

Investigating Officer was directed by the High Court to submit challan in the court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on receipt of some information pertaining to illegal removal of alcoholic drinks by the management of Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse

Respondent was operating the warehouse

Respondent was imposed upon a penalty along with duty and taxes

Appeal filed by respondent before the Collector (Appeals) was dismissed

Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by respondent

Validity

Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation had not found any evidence at the gate of the port which could substantiate that the owner of the warehouse had filed bills of export in order to cover the illegal removal from the bonded warehouse

Show cause notice had not suggested any substantive provision of Customs Act, 1969 being violated in the facts and circumstances of the case

In-bonding and ex-bonding in the Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse involved intricate and complex procedure, which under normal circumstances made it impossible for the importer to cause misappropriation, unless the officials of the customs were also involved and there was no denial to the fact that at all times the goods in the Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse remained in actual physical possession and custody of the customs authorities

In such a situation when none of the customs officials were lopped into the investigation, rather one way investigation claimed to have been carried out that the owner of the Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse removed the subject goods, it was difficult to conceive

Reference application was dismissed.

Initial responsibility lies with the person tempering with a vehicle, however, any subsequent purchaser ought to take due care towards ensuring compliance with the requirements of law; in the absence whereof he cannot claim to a bona fide purchaser

Purchaser's remedy lies in a claim of damages against the person from whom he purchased the vehicle

Smuggled vehicle with an apparent tampered chassis frame merits outright confiscation.

Dumper truck was intercepted, post a chase on the highway, and inside a concealed specially designed tank was discovered loaded with ostensibly smuggled diesel

Pursuant to a show-cause notice, an order-in-original was rendered, whereby diesel was confiscated, however, the truck was allowed release while placing reliance on SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated: 13-06-2009

In the order-in-appeal, the outright confiscation of the truck was also ordered

Appellate Tribunal set aside the order-in-appeal and restored the order-in-original

Reference application filed by department assailed order passed by Appellate Tribunal whereas a constitutional petition was also filed seeking implementation of the order-in-original

Validity

Petitioner was cleaner of the truck, arrested along with the driver at the time when the diesel and truck were apprehended

Powers under Art.199 of the Constitution could be exercised upon application of an aggrieved person

Petitioner was not an aggrieved person, as such, he had no locus standi to maintain the constitutional petition

Release of a confiscated vehicle carrying smuggled goods could not be sanctioned in lieu of payment of a redemption fine pursuant to clause (b) of the S.R.O. No.499(I)/2009, dated: 13-06-2009

Impugned order was not in dissonance with the law, hence, could not be sustained

Findings contained in the order-in-appeal were incorrect appreciation of law

Reference application was allowed and constitutional petition was dismissed.

It is a presumption that items coming into the country have been sieved through the customs barrier and the pertinent levies have been paid.

Law places the initial burden upon the owner/possessor to show that the items are in accordance with lawful authority; such a burden may only be displaced once evidence is demonstrated to discharge this initial burden.

Respondent presented registration documents of another vehicle instead of the vehicle in question, hence, the vehicle was detained for verification and the petitioner was directed to furnish the pertinent import documentation, a task he failed to accomplish

Forensic report of the vehicle revealed that the chassis number on the vehicle was fake as the chassis sheet was welded and replaced at the site of original chassis number

Department confiscated the vehicle, however, the Appellate Tribunal ordered for its release

Validity

Respondent had not challenged the Forensic Report in the adjudication proceedings

Appellate Tribunal had denigrated the report by observing that it failed to identify the particulars, ostensibly implying the original chassis particulars, which had been concealed/replaced

Such callous disregard for primary evidence could not be sustained by the High Court

Documents produced by the respondent were contradictory inter se and were never produced in the original proceedings

Reference application was allowed and the constitutional petition filed by respondent for release of vehicle was dismissed.

While initial responsibility lies with the person tempering with a vehicle, however, a subsequent purchaser ought to take due care towards ensuring compliance with the requirements of law; in the absence whereof he cannot claim to a bona fide purchaser

Purchaser's remedy lies in a claim of damages against the person from whom he purchased the vehicle

Smuggled vehicle with an apparent tampered chassis frame merits outright confiscation.

Show-cause notice did not demonstrate that the goods were brought within the territory of Pakistan through routes other than notified routes or that duties were not paid

On a minor discrepancy showing goods as LCD instead of LED nothing would turn and was of no consequence when rest of the nomenclatures of seized goods were same

Auction report dated 11-9-2015, which was a delivery order as well, disclosed auction date as 26-08-2015 and seizure report was of the following month i.e. 18-09-2015

High Court declined to interfere in the order of release of goods passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

High Court decided the question framed in affirmative

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Question before High Court was whether the Appellate Tribunal had not erred in applying Ss.139 & 142 of the Customs Act, 1969, by allowing the re-export of jewelry which was brought in violation of Customs Act, 1969

Respondent had arrived through a passenger flight from abroad, he was asked to declare if he was carrying any goods to be declared on which he told he had jewelry

Declaration in terms of S.139 of Customs Act, 1969, could be verbal

Verbal declaration was accepted as the respondent was in the arrival hall when he was asked to declare

Respondent had opted for authorized route to bring the goods in the jurisdiction

Prima facie there was no element of smuggling

Clause (89) of S.156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, was of no avail as the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused was making an attempt to smuggle the goods into or out of Pakistan and the consequences of Cl. (8) were not attracted

No concrete evidence existed to prove that the goods were attempted to be smuggled nor even a case of reasonable suspicion was made out

Reference application was dismissed.

Prosecution case was that the FIA conducted raid at a house and recovered 170 bags of ketamine, tactfully concealed in bags of rice meant for export

Accused was arrested as he was present at the spot

Challan of the case was not filed in any court, therefore, the accused approached High Court for seeking bail

Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling) had not entertained the report of the police and had returned the same

Investigating Officer, thereafter, reportedly attempted to submit the challan in the court established under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but it was not accepted for want of jurisdiction

Validity

Section 72 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, envisaged that prohibition and restriction imposed under the Act on import, export of narcotic drug, psychotropic substances would be deemed to be prohibitions and restrictions imposed under the Customs Act, 1969, and the provisions of said Act would apply

First proviso stipulated that notwithstanding anything contained in any law including the Customs Act, 1969, all the offences relating to narcotic drugs would be tried under the provision of the Act

Second proviso, which appeared to be aimed at meeting any investigation related exigency in that regard, elucidated that where an Officer of Customs apprehended a person involved in any such offence, he would be empowered to carry out inquiry or investigation in the manner as an officer authorized under this Act, which meant that if an offence of smuggling in terms of Customs Act, 1969, was committed in respect of any narcotic drug, etc. the scheme under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would come into play and the accused would be dealt with under the provisions of said Act

Arrest and investigation by an officer not strictly authorized by the Act would stand legitimized as having been done by an officer under the Act

Outcome of such investigation for conducting a trial would be the subject matter of the Act and would be looked into by a Court established under the Act

Combined reading of Ss. 74 & 76 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, jointly provided an overriding character of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in the matters of punishment to an accused involved in narcotics cases and applicability of its provisions notwithstanding anything contained in any other law

Even in the face of any conflict between provisions of said Act and other laws criminalizing an action, its consequence, and the medium to deliver or enforce it, provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would prevail over the other law

Investigating Officer was directed by the High Court to submit challan in the court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Clearing agent had filed the declaration for transit to Afghanistan under S.129 of the Customs Act, 1969, purportedly on the instruction of the appellant

Appellant was imposed upon a penalty

Appeal filed before Collector (Appeals) was dismissed

Validity

Customs officials were not empowered to examine the goods for the reason that goods had arrived in transit to Afghanistan and were not meant for home consumption

Section 2(s) did not apply to the case as the goods were imported in transit to Afghanistan

Section 16 was a machinery section under which no charge could be framed

Appellant had not submitted goods declaration for home consumption but had sought clearance of goods for transit to Afghanistan, resultantly neither S. 32 nor S. 32-A was applicable

Invoking of S. 178 was out of place as the appellant was not found with the goods

Since there were no rules for Afghan Transit Trade when show-cause notice was issued, therefore, clause (64) of S. 156(1) contained no consequence in contravention of S. 129

Treatment meted out to the appellant was against the principles enshrined in Arts.4 & 25 of the Constitution as a person having similar role as that of appellant was not booked in the case

Appeal was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Contents of the show-cause notice were not specific in nature nor the seizing agency had complied the proper provisions of law to establish the charge against the appellant

By doing so, the seizing agency/respondent had not discharged the burden cast on them nor shifted it on to the appellant

Prosecution was to establish through the independent evidence that the vehicle was smuggled or brought into the country through unauthorized route or otherwise, unfortunately, the same aspect was never controverted nor any efforts were made

Appellant on the other side had produced evidence along with the registration documents before the competent authority for showing the bona fide possession

Report of Forensic Laboratory was sufficient evidence to observe that the subject vehicle was not tampered nor any replacement of the chassis number was made

Impugned orders were set aside

Charge under S. 157(2) of Customs Act, 1969 having stood established Appellate Tribunal imposed 20% redemption fine and penalty

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Anti-Smuggling Staff of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs) intercepted a truck loaded with 40 feet container and found foreign made juice

Loaded foreign origin goods along with truck and container were detained under S.17 of the Customs Act, 1969

Collector of Customs ordered outright confiscation of seized goods, however, gave an option to the owner of the truck/trailer to redeem the same against redemption fine of 20% of the customs appraised value

Contention of appellant was that he had purchased the goods in open market and was transporting the goods to another district

Contention of respondent was that no import documents were available with the appellant but admitted that the bilty was available with him

Validity

Place from where the goods were taken into possession by the customs staff was far away from the border area so it could safely be presumed that transportation of the goods did not fall under S.2(s) of Customs Act, 1969

Section 2(s) of Customs Act, 1969, clearly depicted that the "smuggling" meant to bring or take out of Pakistan, in breach of any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Sections 2(s) & 177 of Customs Act, 1969 and SRO No.118(I)/83 confirm that the transportation of the goods within the territorial limit of Pakistan does not constitute an offence, meaning thereby that transportation of the locally purchased goods cannot be termed as smuggled goods and as such cannot be contrary to law.

Trucks in question were confiscated as the same were being used to smuggle diesel from foreign country, whereas drivers managed to escape from the scene

Customs Appellate Tribunal imposed penalty upon owners and released the trucks

Validity

Prosecution failed to establish charge against owners to prove that they in any manner were involved in smuggling of foreign diesel

Prosecution failed to bring any evidence that the owners were aware or in knowledge of act which were done by drivers or cleaners

High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as the Appellate authority had rightly appreciated such facts in its true sense and perspective through judgment in question and the same was not suffering from any legal defect

Customs Authorities failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Customs officials were initially busy in discharge of their official duties and were checking the vehicles when a truck arrived at the check post, which was stopped for checking purposes but in the meantime the accused persons also arrived there in another vehicle, forbade the officials from checking the truck, abused and beaten the officials as well as blocked the road by calling more than 100 persons

However, search of the truck resulted into recovery of foreign origin smuggled goods

Customs authorities had rightly lodged the first FIR under the Customs Act, 1969, for the recovery of foreign origin smuggled goods and the second FIR under the provisions of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for restraining the officials from performance of their official duties and giving beatings to them

Section 403, Cr.P.C., Art.13 of the Constitution and S.26 of General Clauses Act, 1897, provided that no one could be vexed twice and prosecuted or punished for the same offence, but if one was guilty of offence under another enactment, though by the same chain of facts, he could be tried, convicted and punished under that very offence committed by him

Principle of double jeopardy was not applicable to the facts of the case

Petition, being devoid of merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Trial Court declared proceedings of trial of smuggling against respondents as coram non judice and were returned to authorities for adjudication

Validity

Act of smuggling of lawful items, by intentionally evading customs duty, was done either deceiving or coupling customs authorities or by utilizing routes that were not specified as declared routes and / or where customs stations were not available

Goods brought into or taken out of the country in both the cases, were considered as "smuggled" goods irrespective of the fact that the same were either specified or notified goods or not

Criminal case and civil liability were two different and distinguished proceedings and both could be carried out simultaneously

In the present case, huge quantities of betel nuts were recovered and at the time of recovery respondents could not satisfy about lawful import, as such there was no other option with prosecution but to consider availability of such huge quantities in violation of restrictions mentioned as well as willfully evasion of customs duty and taxes, therefore, case was rightly initiated

If respondents considered that they were not involved in case and they had been falsely implicated then they could agitate their pleas of innocence before Trial Court and could seek their pre-trial or pending trial acquittal as provided under S.249-A or S.265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case was

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court as there was material impropriety in that order regarding definition of "smuggling" of betel nuts and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Stance taken by applicant at a belated stage was that the vehicle was cleared under SRO 568(I)/2008, dated 11-06-2008, which amounted to admitting that it was smuggled

No document was placed on record to establish clearance of the vehicle under the said SRO

Said notification/SRO explicitly excluded vehicles having tampered engines or chassis numbers

Concurrent findings did not suffer from any illegality

Reference application was disposed of accordingly.

Order on appeal before Appellate Authority was to be passed within 120 days from the date of filing of appeal, which was 12-6-2017 and order should have been passed on or before 10-10-2017

Appellate Authority failed to pass any order and no further extension of 60 days was given by him and the same was due to the fact that no 'exceptional circumstances' were available

Appellate Authority passed order on 22-11-2017 i.e. after expiry of 43 days of the initial currency period of 120 days

No provision existed in Customs Act, 1969, nor any notification was in filed, wherein either transporter or owner of transported goods were directed to supply Goods Declaration / Bills to transporter and he was to keep those during the course of transportation within the country

Authorities were not well within their right to demand furnishing of Goods Declaration / Bills of transported goods in absence of availability of warrant of law

Appellant submitted purchase bill/bilty of transported goods, hence he discharged burden upon him and burden had shifted on the shoulders of authorities as per contemplation of Arts.117 & 120 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which they failed to prove

Authorities failed to obtain verification of bills from seller nor brought into motion the provision of S.165 Customs Act, 1969, despite mandated prior to leveling the charge of smuggling or transportation of smuggled goods

Customs Appellate Tribunal declared detention, seizure of goods of appellant, preparation of contravention report, issuance of show cause notice and passing of order in original / appeal were ab-initio illegal and void and of no legal effect, resultantly the same were set aside and goods were restored to appellant

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Frontier Corps authorities recovered Pakistan and Afghan currency from the possession of appellants when they were coming from Afghanistan to Pakistan

Collector of Customs (Adjudication), after issuance of show-cause notice, confiscated the recovered currency and vehicle used in its transportation

Validity

Seizing agency did not produce Passport, Visa or itinerary to show that appellants were travelling from Afghanistan to Pakistan or otherwise

Appellants produced proper sale agreements in which they sold two vehicles, one for Rs. 5.2 million and the other for Rs.5.1 million

Appellants produced another document prepared by Union Council Nazim to the effect that the forefathers of appellants were engaged in transportation business such as transportation of goods, selling and purchasing of vehicles and managing various bus stops in different parts of the province

"Smuggling" meant to bring in or take out of Pakistan, but in the present case there was nothing to suggest that the appellants were bringing in Pakistan Afghan currency

Amount and vehicles were seized inside Pakistan territory on a busy road which was more than 80 km away from international border

Frontier Constabulary authorities were not authorized to seize or search on the said road

No person could be deprived of his property without due course of law

Mere possession of said foreign currency or Pakistan currency within the jurisdiction of Pakistan was no offence

Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by Collector of Customs (Adjudication); directed the authorities to release the amount of seized currency and the vehicles unconditionally to the appellants on production of proper documents

Appeal was disposed of, accordingly.

One Pakistani national (subsequent owner), purchased the vehicle from previous owner, shipped the same and sold it to the appellant

Particulars of the vehicle were endorsed by Pakistan Embassy on the passport of subsequent owner and was shipped to Pakistan

Dispute between previous owner or any other person was of civil nature which had no concern with the appellant

Record of prosecution showed that report of vehicle being stolen was made before its shipment and it was not understandable as to how the shipment was allowed when a report was registered

Case of prosecution was doubtful and no one could be penalized on the basis of doubtful evidence

Show cause notice was vacated

Order-in-original was set aside.

Vehicles in question were confiscated by authorities on the allegation that High Speed Diesel (HSD) Oil was being smuggled in them

Customs Appellate Tribunal released the vehicles

Validity

Trucks were intercepted by customs authorities on the basis of spy information

Such detention was converted into seizure and trucks were seized on the charges of violating the provision of S. 2(s) read with Ss.16 & 18 of Customs Act, 1969 and also read with Ss. 3 & 3(1) of Import and Export Control Act, 1950

Customs Appellate Tribunal rightly decided the issues which otherwise were based on findings of facts after detailed discussion, deliberation and interpretation of provisions of law

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as same did not carry any mistake apparent on record

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Customs authorities could not dispute sale/purchase transaction however, insisted upon production of ten years' old import documents

Customs authorities could not refer to any provision of law whereby record of import more than ten years old could be demanded from importer

Mere presumption as to allegation of smuggling in absence of any tangible material or evidence could not be approved particularly in respect of importable articles beyond period available to customs authorities for calling of such documents or record under Customs Act, 1969

High Court declined to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969 as there was no factual error and legal infirmity in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant claimed to have lawfully imported the gold under Cl. 5 of Import and Export of Gold, Gold Jewelry and Gemstones Order, 2001

Validity

Legality / illegality / genuineness / validity of import document and Goods Declaration were neither questioned nor agitated before the forums below and there was no finding in that regard incorporated in order of forfeiture

Gold claimed by appellant was brought into Pakistan illegally by a carrier

Gold for which appellant claimed entitlement on the basis of import documents had attained status of smuggled goods and was confiscated under prevailing laws

Collector of Customs was empowered to extend time limit of 120 days or further 60 days, hence maximum limit of finalizing adjudication proceedings were 180 days

Order in Original was passed within the period prescribed under S.179(3) of Customs Act, 1969, therefore, there was no violation of law committed by the Collector

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Adjudicating officer while examining documents failed to explore that Registration Book was sufficient proof of the fact that vehicle was legally imported in the country

When vehicle and papers were presented before Motor Registration Authority for registration, it was their responsibility to check documents and physically examine vehicle thoroughly with reference to their genuineness before registration

Charge of smuggling was leveled on 7-5-2018, i.e. after lapse of 12 years, party could not be called upon to produce import documents

By virtue of S.211 of Customs Act, 1969, importers or exporters were liable to maintain their record and documents only for a period of 5 years

Individual importer who imported goods for private or personal use was excluded from the purview of S.211 of Customs Act, 1969

Once the importer had produced Registration documents, the burden of proof shifted to the authorities, which they had failed to discharge

Customs Appellate Tribunal directed the authorities to release the vehicle to its owner and set aside the order passed by Appellate Authority

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

As soon as vehicle and papers were presented before Motor Registration Authority for registration, it was their responsibility to check documents and physically examine vehicle thoroughly with reference to their genuineness before registration

Registration offices confirmed registration of the vehicle

Vehicle in question was 1994 model whereas action on charge of smuggling was taken on 30-9-2018 i.e. after lapse of 25 years

Party could not be called upon to produce bill of entry and other import documents as by virtue of S.211 of Customs Act, 1969, importer was liable to maintain importation record / documents only for a period of 5 years

Customs Appellate Tribunal declined to interfere in release order passed by Appellate Authority

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant's warehouse was raided by officials of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation and seized items of different kinds

Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) ordered for confiscation of some goods and imposed redemption fine on others

Appeal filed before Collector of Customs was dismissed

Validity

Goods displayed/warehoused by appellant were purchased/procured from the local market against valid invoices

Appellant discharged the initial burden of proof laid upon him by producing valid invoices/bill/payment vouchers and the onus to prove the allegation stood shifted on the shoulders of department

Validity of invoices and payment vouchers was not disputed by the department nor were they proved fake or fabricated

Negative inference could not be drawn as none of the suppliers denied the issuance of invoices and receipts of payments

Department lost sight of the presumption that if the goods found during search were freely available in the local market without restriction then such goods did not fall within the degree of "smuggled goods"

Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by Customs authorities.

Customs Staff recovered foreign origin mobile phones of different brands and models from the vehicle driven by appellant and seized them on failure of the appellant to produce legal/import documents

Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), vide order-in-original, outrightly confiscated the seized goods, while the vehicle used in the transportation of the goods was redeemed to its rightful owner on payment of fine @ 20% of its customs value

Validity

Appellant placed reliance on SRO No.1455(I)/2018 dated 29-11-2018, wherein the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) had directed that mobile devices with SIM or IMEI functionality brought into Pakistan in violation of the provisions of clause(s) of S.2 of the Customs Act, 1969, which had been seized or voluntarily presented to Customs authorities on or before 30-12-2018, would be allowed to be released on payment of applicable duty and taxes payable thereon with imposition of zero fine

Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) and directed the department to release the mobile phones in accordance with SRO No.1455(I)/2018 dated 29-11-2018

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Punishment of persons carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing, or in any manner dealing with smuggled goods

Burden of proof

Scope

Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation intercepted a trailer and found 50 bags of black pepper

Driver produced import documents but documents did not tally with the goods

Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) issued show-cause notice and vide order-in-original confiscated the smuggled goods

Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal

Validity

Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation was not empowered to inquire from either the transporter or owner of the transported goods or from the appellant about the legality of transported goods

Person transporting goods within the territory of Pakistan could not be required to keep goods declaration or purchase bill of the goods with himself

Appellant had purchased goods from the importer, who obtained their clearance from Customs Collectorate after fulfillment of all codal formalities

Interception of trailer, detention, seizure, preparation of contravention report, issuance of show-cause notice and passing of order-in-original were held to be void, illegal and of no legal effect

Appellate Tribunal ordered for restoration of goods to the appellant unconditionally.

Punishment of persons carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing, or in any manner dealing with smuggled goods

Burden of proof

Scope

Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation intercepted a trailer and found 50 bags of black pepper

Driver produced import documents but documents did not tally with the item

Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) issued show cause notice and vide order-in-original confiscated the smuggled goods

Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissed the appeal

Validity

Appellant submitted import documents/bilties and sales tax invoices/return and respective annexures of transported goods

Appellant discharged burden laid upon him and burden stood shifted to the department

Department failed to prove the allegation of smuggling in the presence of confirmation of sale certificate

Appellate Tribunal annulled the show cause notice, set aside the orders passed thereon and ordered for restoration of goods to the appellant unconditionally.