This appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 is directed against the order, dated 8-8- 2004 passed by the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench-II, Lahore, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant against the order, dated 11-2-2004 of the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Faisalabad was dismissed..
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the captioned appeal are that a Pajero Jeep bearing Registration No. PRR 225 was seized on 8-2-2003 by ASO Sargodha from Ch. Nisar son of Ata Ullah at Sargodha. On an inquiry, it transpired that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of the present appellant and had been imported free of customs duty by the appellant in the year, 1995 through the general manifest No.1781 of 1995, dated 25-11-1995 purportedly under S.R.O. No. 506(1)/88, dated 26-6-1988 pursuant to permission, dated 19-11-1995 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Exemption No.10684. The said Ministry however confirmed that they have no record of the appellant's stay in. Pakistan after 4-12-1995. It was also revealed that no diplomatic registration for the vehicle in question was ever obtained from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. A show-cause notice was issued to Ch. Nisar from whom the vehicle in question was seized.
Thereafter the Adjudicating Officer after hearing the parties, ordered that the whole amount of duty and taxes which would have levied at the time of the importation of the vehicle may be paid by the owner of the vehicle subject to the fulfilment of other conditions contained in the notification, dated 26-6-1988 within sixty days, failing which, the department shall take up the matter with the C.B.R./Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the disposal of the vehicle and recovery of the Govt. Taxes.
4. The appellant being aggrieved of the said order, dated 11-2-2004 filed an appeal before the Customs Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed by means of the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant was in Pakistan in 1995 as an accredited consular of Afghanistan in Pakistan and in exercise of the privilege conferred upon him by virtue of his aforesaid status and as mentioned in the said S.R.O., had imported the vehicle in question. He has denied the fact of having sold the vehicle in question to Ch. Nisar and has contended that the same was in the possession of the said person only for purposes of its repair. It is also contended that the appellant is still in Pakistan and furthermore , in the alternative the entire duty cannot be required to be paid in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. There is a finding of the Tribunal as well as by the Adjudicating Officer that the vehicle in question had been disposed of/sold to Ch. Nisar who in fact is stated to have raised the plea that he is owner of the vehicle and is ready to pay all the customs duty and other taxes due upon the said vehicle. He did not challenge the order of the Adjudicating Officer. Furthermore, it is apparent on the record that the diplomatic status of the appellant had ceased to exist from 4-12-1995 and obviously the privileges associated therewith automatically came to an end, and thus, the contention of the learned counsel that the appellant continued to stay in Pakistan loses its significance. To us, it appears to be a case of gross abuse of the hospitality extended to a foreign diplomat.
7. Jurisdiction presently invoked by the appellant under section 196 of the Customs Act is limited only to deal with the questions of law. In pith and substance the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant raise a factual controversy which is beyond the jurisdiction and scope of section 196 of the Customs Act. We are fortified in this view by this Court's judgment reported as Messrs Flying Board and Paper Production v. Assistant Controller Customs (Appraisement), Dryport Mughalpura Lahore (2001 YLR 3064).
8. For what has been discussed above, we hardly find any question of law for being determined by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 196 of the Customs Act. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. .