' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---It was reported to the Deputy Collector, Customs House, Peshawar by the Deputy Superintendent, Customs Special Checking Squad that in pursuance of prior information the staff intercepted a Toyota Corolla Car No,D-1202/Dir on 5-6-2001, at Main Bazaar, Sher Garh. The chassis number of the vehicle was seemed to be tampered with, therefore, a notice under section 26 read with section 2 (kk) of the Customs Act, 1969 was served upon the occupant of the vehicle namely, Muhammad Rafiq. The detained vehicle was referred to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Crime Branch, Peshawar, for chemical treatment of its chassis number plate. The Director FSL Peshawar, by his opinion, dated 20-6-2001, found that chassis number was refitted and welded. In the light of above investigation and verification, the detention was converted into seizure under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969. On confirmation that the occupant/owner of the vehicle brought a non-paid vehicle into the country through illegal route and replaced its chassis number plate to evade leviable duty/taxes. The occupant of the vehicle failed to provide any proof regarding replacement of chassis number plate. The occupant found to have committed offence of smuggling, therefore, the papers were submitted for adjudication to Deputy Collector (Customs). Muhammad Rafiq appellant and Nasib Gul were called upon to show cause within ten days of the date of dispatch of the show-cause notice as to why besides taking penal action under clause (8) (89) and (90) of subsection (1) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, read with section 3(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, the sezied vehicle should not be confiscated under the aforesaid provisions of law. The appellant and Nasib Gul were required to produce all documentary evidence showing legal import or lawful possession in their defence along with written explanation within the time specified, failing which the case was to be decided ex parte on the basis of evidence available on record without any further reference to them.
2. On the conclusion of trial, Deputy Collector, Peshawar, taking into consideration the material available on record proceeded to hold that legal import or lawful possession of Muhammad Rafiq has not been produced and the charge contained in the show-cause notice stands established.
Having held so, he ordered outright confiscation of the seized car by means of his order, dated 26- 9-2001, which was maintained in appeal by order, dated 5-3-2005, passed by Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad Bench, at Peshawar.
3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Rafiq appellant has filed instant appeal (S.A.O. No,16 of 2005), impugning the correctness of concurrent verdicts of Courts below on a variety of grounds..
4. Representing the appellant, Mr. Ajun Khan, Advocate vehemently contended that respondent had no power to seize the vehicle and take physical possession under section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969; that the appellant has brought sufficient evidence on record to show that the vehicle in question has been legally imported; but the same has not been appreciated and assessed in its true perspective; and that the appellants request for summoning the FSL Expert for cross- examination or referring the seized vehicle to any other laboratory, has been declined without any valid justification.
5. Mr. Waqar Ahmad Seth, Advocate appearing on behalf of Customs, fully supported the impugned judgment and decrees maintaining that the appeal is bereft of substance and merits dismissal.
6. I have heard in detail, the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that since the Superintendent Customs was not authorized to seize the vehicle, the entire proceedings based on such seizure being against the provision of section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969, will be nullity in the eyes of law.
He also contended that if at all any tampering with the chassis number of the vehicle has been done, that may have been done in the country, it was imported, therefore, it will not adversely reflect on the claim of the appellant specially when no finger of doubt or suspicion has been raised by the respondent as to the genuineness of the documents showing its import. Lastly it was submitted that where no probe was made whether any other vehicle operated under the same documents, the genuineness of the vehicle in question could not be looked askance at. I regret the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant do not carry weight. The provision mentioned above is neither mandatory nor any consequence for failure to comply there with has been mentioned therein. The second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is also devoid of force because it cannot be urged in second appeal and secondly because it being essentially one of fact cannot be gone into while hearing an appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 which is maintainable only on a question of law. The last arguments of learned counsel for the appellant also appear to have no foundation at all when the appellant could not establish any nexus between the documents of import and the vehicle so seized and confiscated, as according to the report of the FSL, the chassis number of the latter was re-stamped and tampered with.
Needless to say that it is not the genuineness or otherwise of the documents but that of the vehicle which is in dispute.
8. Having adjudged the matter from all angles, I find that the impugned judgments are perfect and not open to legitimate exception. The same are based on the material available on record and nothing seems to have escaped notice of the forums below. The appeal is meritless. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.