1. Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellant, does not press this application for the reason that the application was submitted as a matter of abundant caution, while in fact the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this point and we find that the documents produced by the two parties in their support are not sufficient to give any definite finding that the copy of the order was furnished to the Director- General Intelligence and Investigation or Collector of Customs (Appraisement) on 9-10-2004. We, therefore, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant hold that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order we find that the Tribunal has failed to give specific and detailed findings on the points raised by the parties. The case of the Department was that initially no documents were produced by the respondent to show that the seized goods were not smuggled and subsequently the documents, which were furnished, did not show conclusively that the seized goods were covered by the bills of entries produced by the respondent. On the other hand, the case of the respondent was that the goods were legally imported and were covered by the bills of entries produced by them. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not given any detailed and specific finding on the point whether the seized goods were actually covered by the documents produced by the respondent or the documents pertained to some other goods and the respondent attempted unsuccessfully to establish that the goods were actually covered by the documents on which reliance was placed.
We further find substance in the contention of Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal that instead of considering the particular facts of this case, the Tribunal had decided the issues by making reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the B impugned judgment itself the Tribunal has referred to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that, "It is settled law that a quasi-judicial order must be speaking order manifesting by itself that the Tribunal has applied its judicial mind to the issues and the points of controversy involved in the cases". However, the Tribunal has not acted on this principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. .