RESHMA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED vs CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss — 2024 PTD 591 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

RESHMA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss. 32(1), 30(b), 79, 104, 109, 156(1), Cl. (14) & 196---Mis-declaration regarding description / particulars of goods imported for ware-housing---Allegation of---Penal consequences---Provisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969---Applicability---Clearance of goods, stage of---Scope---Liability qua evaded duties as well as personal liability was imposed upon the importer/company vide order-in-original, however, Customs Appellate Tribunal, though retaining the penalty, rejected claim of evaded duties on the ground that duties needed to be re-assessed at the time of clearance of goods---Question was whether or not, the declaration submitted/statement made, when found wrong, constituted an offence under S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969---Primary argument of importer/company, while filing reference, was that since duties had to be assessed at the time of clearance of goods, and not for in-bonding, therefore, S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969, had no applicability---Validity---It was not controverted that declaration for warehousing, qua the imported goods, was submitted in terms of S. 79 of the Customs Act, 1969, wherein particulars / description of goods was provided and the same was found incorrect in the context of description of goods and wrong mentioning of PCT Heading---Subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969, indicates its independent existence for the purposes of attracting penalty in terms of Cl.(14) of S.156(1) of Customs Act, 1969---Said Cl. (14) treats offence under subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act as an independent offence, for the purposes of the penalty envisaged---A person can be charged with offence under subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969, where he knows and has reason to believe that a document furnished and statement made in connection with the matter of Customs, is false---Similarly, subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969, does not draw any distinction between declaration made either for the purposes of in-bonding or ex-bonding---Evidently, incorrect declaration / statements made, even for the purposes of in-bonding, is covered under the expression in connection with any matter of customs, and same constitutes an offence under subsection (1) of S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, incurring penalty in terms of Cl. (14) of S. 156(1) of Customs Act, 1969---In the present case, factum of knowledge was not disputed while the Clearing Agent, who acted for the applicant, had not preferred any application before the High Court--- Finding of fact was recorded by the Customs Appellate Tribunal with respect to the intent underlying mis-declaration---Thus, the present case fell within the ambit of subsection (1) of S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, which attracted penalty, notwithstanding submission of declaration for ex-bonding for the purposes of ascertaining duties at later stage---Thus, proposed question of law was answered in negative---Reference application filed by the importer/ company was dismissed , in circumstances.

RESHMA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED vs CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ss — 2024 PTD 591 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PTD