ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J. - Through this custom appeal a number of questions were formulated by the appellant which were said to have arisen from the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2000 passed by the Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in Custom Appeal No. 699/LB/2000. On 07.11.2012, at the time of arguments of this appeal only one question of law was formulated:- "Whether the officer passing the impugned judgment had the jurisdiction to pass the said judgment. While the stance of the appellant is that the said officer had such jurisdiction, the respondent is of the view that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction."
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent imported various consignments of plastic scrap and waste during May, 1996 and sought their clearance on payment of customs duty and other taxes. The customs staff examined the goods and it was found that their value was under stated. The staff ascertained the value of the subject consignment at U.S. $ 185 per M. Ton as against the declared value of U.S.$ 50 per M. Ton. The assessment was thus completed by the appraisal officer and customs duty and other taxes were worked out on the basis of the enhanced value. As per direction passed in writ petition, the Customs Authorities released the consignment in question on payment of customs duty and other taxes on the basis of the declared value and subject to indemnity bond for different amount. Subsequently issue of valuation was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector Dry port, vide order dated 14.09.2000 who held that the value was not correctly declared and directed respondent to pay the differential amount. The order dated 14.09.2000 was challenged and the same was set aside vide impugned order dated 17.11.2000 passed by Custom, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the order dated 14.09.2000 was not without jurisdiction. The learned counsel referred to Section 2(a) of the Customs Act, 1969 containing definitions of "Adjudicating Authority" to argue that any authority including Assistant Collector is competent to adjudication and such adjudication is not restricted to officers mentioned in Section
179. It is argued that the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer was under Section 80 of the Act read with SRO 56(l)/93, dated 19.01.1993; that the conceding statement of the departmental representative before the Tribunal to the effect that Adjudicating Officer acted beyond jurisdiction was result of misunderstanding and there is no estoppel against the law.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that order dated 14.09.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs was absolutely without jurisdiction and she was not competent to pass such order as per pecuniary jurisdiction provided under Section 179 of. The Customs Act, 1969 to adjudicate. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the representative of the department herself conceded before the Tribunal that Adjudicating Officer was not authorize under the law to decide this case and suggested that the same be remanded for de novo consideration.
5. We have he&rd the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the relevant provisions of law in the instant case with their able assistance, In order to adjudicate the question of law, we have to briefly reiterate the events of facts. It is admitted position as specified in order dated 14.09.2000 that the concerned officer completed the assessment of goods under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 on the enhanced value of US $ 185/M.T. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him in terms of Notification No. S.R.O. 56(l)/93, dated 19.01.1993. Thereafter the proceedings for recovery of outstanding Government dues amounting to Rs. 27775263/- were initiated vide letters dated 02.04.1998. Dated 10.11.1999 and 20.11.1999. Finally, in letter dated 11.02.2000 the total liability was calculated to Rs. 28876294.0 by way of making addition of Rs. 459901/- and Rs. 684434/- which was subject-matter of the adjudication vide Order-in-Original No. 50 of 1997, dated 18.12.1997 and No. 49 of 1997, dated 18.12.1997.
6. Simultaneously, the importer/respondent agitated against enforcement proceedings and desired that issue of valuation may be decided through the process of normal assessment.
Accordingly, adjudication was done and impugned order in original dated 13.09.2000 was passed by the Assistant Collector.
7. The above facts show that the Order-in-Original dated 14.09.2000 was the result of adjudication under Section 179 of the Customs Act.
Section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969 relates to the powers of Adjudication which is reproduced hereunder:- "179. Power of adjudication.-(1) Subject to subsection (2) in cases involving confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the jurisdiction and powers of adjudication of the Officers of Customs in terms of amount of duties and other taxes involved, excluding the conveyance, shall be as follows:- i.Collector Without limit. ii.Additional CollectorConfiscation of goods the value of which does not exceed Rs.
1,500,000/- excluding the value of conveyance and the value of non-dutiable goods, and imposition of the penalty under the rules. iii.Deputy CollectorConfiscation of goods the value of which does not exceed Rs.
500,000/- excluding the value of conveyance and the value of non-dutiable goods, and imposition of the penalty under the rules.
8. A perusal of the above-referred Section reveals that each authority working under the hierarchy of the customs department has been assigned a job to perform his duties within the parameter as specifically provided under the above law. This hierarchy does not include Assistant Collector.
9. It is admitted fact that the adjudication was done by Assistant Collector on 14.09.2000 regarding amount of Rs. 28,876294.00, whereas under Section 179(1) the authority to adjudicate upon the case exceeding Rs.1500,0 vests only with the Collector. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that Assistant Collector was competent to adjudicate the matter due to the definitions of "adjudicating authority" under Section 2(a) and power of Assessment under Section 80 of the Act read with SRO 56(1 )/93, dated 19.01.1993, has no force because under Section 80 read with SRO 56(1 )/93, dated 19.01.1993, only Superintendent/Principal appraisal could do Assessm ent of duty, which assessment was already done by the Competent Authority, much before adjudication dated 14.09.2000. Therefore, the order was without jurisdiction making the entire proceedings coram non judice. Reliance is placed on Mansab AH v. Amir {PLD 1971 SC: 124); Faqir Abdul Majeed Khan v. District Returning Officer and others (2006 SCM R 1713); Yousaf AH v.
Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others (PLD 1958 SC 104); and Saeed Faruq v. State and 2 others (1996 M LD 434).
10. Any transgression to the responsibility assigned within the parameter of Section 179(1) of the Customs Act would render the entire exercise of authority to be ab initio void and illegal. Reliance is placed on Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of PACCS, Karachi v. M/s. Kapron Overseas Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd., Karachi (PTCL 2010 CL 1067).
11. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the question No. 1 is answered in negative. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.