JUDGMENT: MR. JUSTICE SARDAR SHAUKAT HAYAT.-(1). Brief facts of the instant Reference are that the Customs Mobile Squad, Mardan intercepted a Toyota Hiace Van Model, 1991 bearing Registration No. C-2101, Chassis No. LH 1133-0000680, Engine No. 3L-2031286. The vehicle was detained for verification. The E.T.O. Mardan informed that the registration number used by the vehicle has already been cancelled on 27-9-2001. The vehicle was also chemically examined from Forensic Science Laboratory. It was reported that its chassis plate has been cut and another iron sheet has been welded at its place. The vehicle was accordingly seized under the relevant provisions of law and the case was forwarded to the Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Peshawar, who after issuance show-cause notice to the respondent and hearing the parties ordered outright confiscation of the said vehicle.
2. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Peshawar, against the Order-in-Original which was dismissed. The respondent aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Forum filed second appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench which was accepted and the orders of forums below were set aside and the vehicle was ordered to be released unconditionally to its rightful owner. Hence the instant Customs Reference under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 against the Order-in-Appeal No. Cus.84/PB/2005 dated 31-1-2007.
3. learned counsel for the appellant while arguing his case formulated the following law points for consideration:--
(i) Whether the learned Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench was right to release the vehicle when the seizing department has successfully shifted proof that the chassis plate of the vehicle was refitted and there was no sign of accident on it.
(ii) Whether the learned Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench was right to hold that the vehicle is legally imported.
(iii) Whether the learned Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench has not acted in excess of its jurisdiction by shifting onus of proof on the seizing agency.
(iv) Whether the difference in the FSL reports is so material that both reports be discarded and a smuggled vehicle be declared as legally imported one.
(v) Whether the vehicle in question is the same which was legally imported on 7-10-1991 or the chassis place of a smuggled vehicle has been cut off and another chassis sheet of legally imported vehicle has been welded on its chassis number plate.
He prayed for acceptance of reference petition and setting aside of impugned order.
4. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order-in- appeal dated 31-1-2007 and further submitted that the reference in hand being not singed by the Collector is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Placed reliance on PTCL 2009 CL. 736; PTCL 2008 CL. 33 7 and PTCL 2008 CL. 354.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, we will first satisfy ourselves whether the instant reference is maintainable in its present form. From perusal of the instant reference being filed under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, it transpires that the appeal is filed in the name of Collector Customs but not signed by the Collector. Even there exists no affidavit or verification with the reference petition. The reference petition is only signed by the counsel for the appellant. Under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 the reference could be filed, signed or verified only by the Collector. None else is authorized to sign or verify the reference on behalf of the Collector. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has decided in the case of Director General Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (PTCL 2008 CL. 337) that the appeal could be filed by the Collector only and none else. And if not signed and verified by him, same would also be deemed not to have been filed in accordance with law. Similarly, in another judgment PTCL 2009 CL. 736 titled Additional Collector Sales Tax v. Messrs Associated Industries Ltd., this Court has held that so long as an appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 is not filed and verified by the Collector, it cannot be held to be competent.
7. Respectfully following the dictum laid down by the apex Court and also this Court in the matter, we are of the view that the instant reference petition being not filed in accordance with law is not maintainable in its present form. Hence without touching the merits of the case, the reference petition in hand is dismissed as such.