ORDER: MS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).--(1). This appeal is directed against the Order-in- Original No, 03 of 2005, dated 9.4.2005 passed by Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi.
2. The brief facts which gave rise to the above said appeal are that the appellant had received a show cause notice dated 2.3.2005 in which it was alleged that the appellants were holding Custom Private Bonded Ware House License No, 14/80, and they neither applied for renewal of the license since 30.06.1994 nor paid the establishment charges amounting to Rs, 1,42,000/-. The respondent after hearing the case had passed the impugned order and the license was cancelled under section 13(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 and amount of Rs, 1,42,000/- as establishment charges was ordered to be recovered from the appellant.
3.This appeal is moved on the grounds that the appellant had not applied for the renewal of the license since 30.06.1994 and there is no provision in the Customs Act, 1969 which binds the appellant to obtain renewal or to apply for the renewal. It was stated that establishment charges are not payable as no services of the Custom Authorities were enjoyed by the appellant and that there is no provision in the Customs Act, 1969 which empowers the respondent to determine the establishment charges at his own will without seeking any approval from the legislature. There is no allegations in the show cause notice showing the period and basis of computing Rs, 1,42,000/- as establishment charges. It was prayed to set-aside the order-in-original and hold that the establishment charges are not payable by the appellant.
4.Heard Mr. Muhammad Afzal Awan, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sanaullah for the respondent and perused the case record.
5.The learned Advocate for the appellant had based his arguments on the grounds taken by him in the appeal and urged the Court that the appellant had Private Bonded Ware House and had been renewing the license from time to time up till June, 1994. Since the goods were not received, therefore, license was not renewed and, therefore, establishment charges are not payable. He re- iterated that when the license had expired they are not bound to pay establishment charges.
6.The issue before the Court is that:-- 1.Whether it was compulsory that the appellant to renew the license under the Customs Act, 1969?
2.Whether the appellant are bound to pay establishment charges even if the license had expired?
7.Mr. Sanaullah the Departmental Representative has been unable to explain and quote any provision of Customs Act, 1969 the appellants were bound to renew the license after it had expired and they were liable to pay the establishment charges even if the license had expired.
8. I have gone through the provision of Customs Act, 1969 and I do not find any mandatory provision by which the appellants were bound to renew the license and to pay establishment charges even if the license had expired, therefore, I answer both these issues as not proved the burden of which lay heavily upon the respondent to prove. The respondent also failed to show that even after expiry of the license the appellants were receiving the goods for their Private Bonded Ware House. Since the appellant had not received the goods at their Private Bonded Ware House and for the reasons that he had not renewed the license which had expired, therefore, they are not liable to pay the establishment charges as such I set-aside the order-in-original and allow this appeal.