MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QADIR MENGAL.-(1). This reference has been filed against the order dated 29- 10-2010, passed in Custom Appeal No. Q-199 of 2009, by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Karachi, whereby the order dated 22-12-2008, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in Custom Appeal No. 96 of 2008 was set aside including the original Custom Order No. 4 of 2008, passed by the Assistant Collector Customs House, Gwadar, with a direction that confiscation of goods is illegal including fine levied on Track No. TKJ-525, as such, released the goods and ordered to refund the fine, if any has been recovered.
2. Being aggrieved of the said order, the Collector Customs, Model Customs Collectorate Customs House, Quetta has come to this Court with a prayer that the order dated 29-10-2010, passed by the Member Judicial Bench-I, Appellate Tribunal Customs, Excise and Sales Tax, in Case No. 16- Cus/Seiz/GWD/08 is illegal, which requires interference and further a genuine point of law is involved in the matter, as the Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench-I, Karachi erred to hold responsible the Customs Authorities to prove the case instead of the owner, which is contrary to the provisions of section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969.
3. Learned Standing Counsel stated that, the goods were imported and smuggled one, while the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Karachi, without asking for the import documents, has illegally ordered the release of the goods.
4. We have heard Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel on behalf of the State and as well as for Collector Customs, while Mr. Sadbar Jan Advocate was heard for respondent No. 1. The facts as has been gathered from the record are that on 8-6-2008, the staff of the Customs House stopped a ten wheeler truck bearing Registration No. TKJ-525 on Zero point, Uthal, which was coming from Turbat side towards Karachi. On checking of the truck there were empty pressed drums, caps and cans including iron and steel scrape re-meltable. The driver Yar Muhammad was asked to show the legal import documents to clear the position, however, he failed to show any document, as such, the customs authorities seized the goods and the truck under section 157(2) of the Customs Act, 1969.
5. It is an admitted fact that the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Karachi, clearly has mentioned in the impugned order that the respondent had produced the documents in respect of confiscated scrape, which he has bought in an open auction, held by the Messrs Meerani Dam Project Authorities. Both the lower forums i.e. Assistant Collector Customs including the Excise Federal Appellate Tribunal and Assistant Collector Customs House, Gwadar rejected the version of the respondent, holding that the subject auction has been held in violation of provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, as no approval of the relevant customs authorities has been obtained.
The Customs Appellate Tribunal, and as well as the Assistant Collector Customs House, Gwadar mainly based their view on Rule 58 of Chapter-V of S.R.O. 450(I)/2001, which is reproduced as under:- "As soon as the goods at any place in the custody of any person have reached the stage of being sold under the Act, or in the opinion of such person are required to be sold by auction, shall be brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector or the Assistant Collector of the area concerned by that person giving a list of such goods."
6. The documents produced by the respondent shows that the goods have been purchased by the respondent through auction from Descon Engineering Limited, who is working at Meerani Dam, Turbat. Admittedly, the company importing various types of articles for construction of the said Dam. The company has sold the goods through a valid auction is not bound to inform the Customs Authorities, as it is a private limited company. The above provision of law related about the goods, which are seized by an authority under the Customs Act, such as police, coast guard, E.C and other related agencies, who having power to seize the goods under the Customs Act, 1969, and after seizure, if the authority intends to auction the goods, it should issue notice to the Customs Authorities, and the respondent is not responsible for noncompliance of any provision of the Customs Act by the Descon Engineering Limited.
7. In our view, the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Karachi has taken a right view in respect of the seized goods. No doubt under section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 the initial burden lies on the shoulder of the respondent to show a lawful authority or permit or document in respect of the possession of the foreign origin goods. The respondent has successfully discharged his burden by producing the documents proving purchase of the goods through a lawful auction from Descon Engineering Limited. So after a reasonable explanation offered by the respondent, the responsibility shifted upon the Customs Authorities, to show that the goods, were smuggled by the respondent, but no evidence or material was produced by the Customs Authorities. The Customs, Excise and Sales tax Appellate Tribunal, has not committed any error, nor the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out any law point, requiring interpretation.
8. Thus, with the above discussed circumstances this reference has no any weight and th& same is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.