BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---This appeal has been directed against the judgment, dated 24-9-2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench-II, Lahore, whereby appeal filed by the appellant against the order of Collector of Customs, Lahore, dated 11-2-2000 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts for disposal of the instant appeal are that appellant imported a consignment comprising 72 Rolls of "40 ML (1.0MM) SDHDPE (WIDTH 6.86M/Length 211 M/Area 1.447.M2) for which the importer filed Bill of Entry No.003488, dated 7-12-1999 claiming benefit of concessionary duty under S.R.O. 555(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998. The Deputy Collector of Customs released the goods under the said notification by extending claimed benefit to the appellant. The Collector of Customs re- opened the case under section 195 of the Customs Act and held that the goods imported by the appellant did not fall in the category of Anti-Pollution Equipment and component, therefore, he was not A entitled for the benefit of reduced rate of customs duty in terms of S.R.O. 555(I)/98, dated 12- 6-1998 and the appellant was directed to pay the customs duty, sales tax and withholding tax amounting to Rs.20,93,388. The judgment of Collector was challenged before the Tribunal through appeal but the said appeal met the same fate and appeal was dismissed vide judgment, dated 24-9-2001. Hence his appeal.
3. In support of this appeal learned counsel for the appellant has argued that concession in duty was extended to Anti-Pollution Equipment/device and components of Anti-Pollution equipment except which are manufactured in the country and the learned Tribunal decided the appeal on wrong premises by holding that the sheets imported by the appellant did not fall under S.R.O.
555(I)/98, dated 12-6-1998. It is further argued that benefit of said S.R.O. Is available not only to the equipment but also to the devices and components and the goods imported being equipments/devices was rightly given benefit of concession under S.R.O. 555(I)/98, dated 12-6- 1998.
4. We have given due consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also examined the record.
5. The learned Tribunal by making reference to company brochure produced by the appellant has found that sheet (geo membrane) has multiple applications e.g. Its use in the reservoirs and ponds as a liner to prevent contaminants from entering ground water sources, as water proofing membrane in under drain tunnels and to prevent seepage in storage tanks and irrigation canals.
Therefore, it can neither be termed either Anfi-Pollution Equipment nor device or the component.
There are concurrent findings of fact against the appellant and no law point has been urged before us warranting interference in well-reasoned judgments, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any force. .