The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI vs ABDUL RAZZAQ Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI VS ABDUL RAZZAQ Ss. 2(s), 181, 194 & 196---SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009---SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 6.6.2005---Smuggling---Confiscation---Release of the goods on payment of duty and taxes without any redemption---Scope and effect---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. Citation Name: 2024 PTD 1205 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI VS ABDUL RAZZAQ Ss. 194 & 196---Findings of the Customs appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') on questions of fact(s)---Belated objection regarding inspection order---Department filed Customs Reference against the judgment passed by the Tribunal---Tribunal sought report from the Commissioner on the basis of which it was concluded that out of total lot of the consignment so seized, 40% of the goods were of local origin, whereas the remaining 60% were of foreign origin---Validity---Objection regarding the inspection order was also belated inasmuch as, if aggrieved, the applicant /Department ought to have impugned the same when the said order was passed. Citation Name: 2024 PTD 1205 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI VS ABDUL RAZZAQ Ss. 194 & 196---Findings of the Customs appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') on questions of fact(s)---Reference jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Department filed Customs Reference against the judgment passed by the Tribunal---Tribunal sought report from the Commissioner on the basis of which it was concluded that out of total lot of the consignment so seized, 40% of the goods were of local origin, whereas the remaining 60% were of foreign origin---Validity---High Court in reference jurisdiction in terms of S.196 of the Customs act, 1969, cannot interfere and reach to some other conclusion against the Tribunal's finding---Tribunal is the last fact finding forum and only questions of law are to be examined by the High Court in its reference jurisdiction. Citation Name: 2024 PTD 1205 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI VS ABDUL RAZZAQ Ss. 194C(7)(a), (d) & 196---Inspection carried out through commission by the Customs Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal')---Reference jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Department filed Customs Reference against the judgment passed by the Tribunal---Validity---In terms of S. 194C (7)(a) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1969, the Customs Appellate Tribunal for the purposes of discharging its functions is even vested with powers of inspection and issuance of commission; hence to the extent of findings of fact, as above, the same cannot be interfered with or altered in the reference jurisdiction.

The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI vs ABDUL RAZZAQ Ss — 2024 PTD 1205 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PTD