This appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 assails an order of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 31-5-2002.
2. On 13-8-2001 the Anti-Smuggling Staff of the Customs Department, Lahore intercepted a Truck No.QAD-9551 near Farooqabad, Sargodha Road, Sheikhupura and found machine made carpets of foreign origin as also free wheels for cycles, diamond brand A made in India. On demand the Truck driver submitted a photocopy of Bill of Entry No.. 1220, dated 18-10-2000 to show the import of the carpets. However, no document was presented in respect of the aforesaid other goods.
3. On usual proceedings by way of the Order-in-Original, dated 19-9-2001 the Addl. Collector (Adjudication) found that the charges made against the respondent as confronted to them through show-cause notice were established and therefore, the goods seized as detailed in recovery memo. Were confiscated in favour of the Government. However, the owner was given option to redeem the same on payment of Rs.500,000 as redemption fine. Also the owner was burdened with personal penalty of Rs.200,000. Learned Tribunal by way of the impugned order maintained the findings so recorded though the imposition of personal penalty was found harsh and therefore, remitted in toto.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the appellant has not been able to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as that the Adjudicating Authority on any mentionable ground. The fact that the appellant failed to produce any proof of lawful import and possession of the goods in question appears established on record. We are also in agreement with the forums below that Bill of Entry No. 1220, dated 18-10-2002 as well as the sales tax Invoice No. 28, dated 28-10-2000 could not be related to the goods seized by the department.
The observation of the forums below that the goods covered by the said bill of entry were cleared on 30-10-2000 while the sales tax invoice evidencing payment of sales tax was two days earlier i.e. 28-10-2000 has not been controverted by any cogent evidence or arguments. Therefore, the treatment meted out to the appellant by the two forums below is not open to exception.
5. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the value of the goods in hand the redemption fine of Rs.500,000 is on the higher side appears unjustified.
6. Therefore, keeping in view the said contention as also the attending facts of the case, although the rest of the order, has been upheld, we will direct the reduction of fine from Rs.500,000 to 1,50,000.
7. The appeal is accepted to the aforesaid extent only.