' Through instant reference application, M/s Pakistan Soap Manufacturer has impugned combined judgment dated 20.06.2015 passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Bench-I, Karachi, in Custom Appeal No,K-164/2015 (and several others), whereas, following questions have been proposed, which according to learned counsel for the applicant are questions of law:--
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of case the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi, misread the relevant section 25-A of The Customs Act, 1969, read with all Rules and Notification related thereto, issued for determination of Customs Value for the purpose of assessment of imported goods?
2. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi, was justified to set-aside the impugned order without taking any notice as to how number of consignment of Toilet Soap imported by commercial importers declaring grossly under .Invoice values which causes loss to National Exchequer in shape of duty and Taxes?
3. Whether on facts and circumstances of case the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi has not erred in law to point out that Customs Values determined in Valuation Ruling No,702/2014 dated 25.11.2014 were grossly on lower than Values of Raw materials which injured not only local Industry but also Government revenue?
4. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi, has considered that at the time of determination of Customs Values, interest of local industry is to be protected primarily?
5. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi, has not appreciated that the Valuation Ruling No,702/2014, dated 25.11.2014 has been revised and fresh Valuation Ruling No,737/2015, dated 27.05.2015 of Toilet Soap has been issued as per directives in Order-in-Revision No,72/2015, dated 01.07.2014?
6. Whether a lower judicial forum, such as the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi, can indulge in selective reading of order of judicial forums and non-reading of record available in instant case, and ignore most vital part of it to utter determent of revenue and to benefit of an individual?
7. Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal has acknowledgement of the facts that there is massive under-invoicing in the import of soap and goods are being imported below the price of raw material (Soap Noodles)?
' Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi, appreciated that values determined in Valuation Ruling No,702/2014 dated 25.11.2014 vide Srl.Nos.5, 6, and 10 were the value of raw material (Soap Noodles), even?
Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal Bench-I Karachi, has not appreciated that values again determined in Valuation Ruling No,737/2015 dated 27.05.2015 against Serial Nos.& 7, 8, 10 and 11 were lower than the price of Raw materials (Soap Noodles)?
10. Whether the impugned Order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal is sustainable in law and on facts of this case?
' Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal has applied its judicial mind and taken into consideration the law laid down by Honourable Superior Courts with regard to the subject matter before it?
2. Office has raised an objection with regard to limitation as it appears that instant Reference Application has been filed after a lapse of about (07) seven months from the date of impugned judgment passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal in the instant case. Similar objection was raised by this Court on 27.04.2016 when the matter was fixed in Court, however learned counsel for the applicant requested for time to assist on the point of limitation. Today, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the application being C.M.A. No,1724/2016 seeking condonation of delay and has readout the contents of the supporting affidavit filed along with listed application. It has been contended by the learned counsel that applicant was prevented by sufficient cause as explained in the affidavit, therefore, submits that the delay in filing instant reference application may be condoned. Record shows that Notices have not been issued in the instant reference application so far, however, there has been an order of this Court to fix instant matter along with Spl. Custom Ref. Application No,1371/2015 (and others) filed by the department against the same impugned judgment passed by the Customs Appellate Tribunal in instant case, whereas, learned counsel for the applicant was directed to satisfy this Court on the point of limitation.
3. Mr. Khalid Javed Khan, Advocate, representing the respondents in the above reference applications submits that though Notice has not been issued in the instant matter, however, in order to assist this Court on the point of limitation, he has referred to a recent judgment of this Court on the point of limitation, in the case of Collector of Customs v. Shandev Vankwani reported as 2016 PTD 5.5. It has been further submitted that in the aforesaid Reference Applications filed on behalf of department, the present applicant has also filed application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C., to become a party, whereas, according to learned counsel, the decision of this Court in the aforesaid Reference Application(s) will finally settle the dispute regarding vcluation of different brands of soap, therefore, according to learned counsel, instant Reference Application is otherwise liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record with their assistance, which reflects that impugned judgment was passed on 20.06.2015, whereas, instant Reference Application was filed on 05.04.2016, which is admittedly barred by (06) six months and 15 (fifteen) days. From perusal of the contents of affidavit filed along with condonation application, it appears that no specific date has been mentioned by the applicant when the impugned judgment, which was admittedly served upon the Chairman of -the applicant, was eventually traced out by the present applicant for filing instant reference, so that the limitation could be possibly counted from said date. It is settled legal position that in case of expiry of limitation provided for filing any appeal or reference, substantial right accrues to the succeeding party, which cannot be taken away lightly in a casual manner, unless, the aggrieved party comes forward with some plausible explanation and evidence explaining the delay of each and every day while seeking condonation. We are of the opinion that no reasonable explanation whatsoever, has been given by the applicant, which may require this Court to condone the delay of about six (06) months and fifteen days in the instant matter. Moreover, the applicant has also filed an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. In the aforesaid Reference Application(s) whose fate is yet to be decided in accordance with law. This Court, under similar circumstances, in the case of Collector of Customs v. Shandev Vankwani reported as 2016 PTD 55 has held as under:- "We may observe that on expiry of period of limitation provided for filing reference or appeal etc. Creates a vested right in favour of succeeding party and unless some reasonable explanation is given, explaining the delay of each and every day, condonation under such circumstances cannot be allowed. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the admitted delay in filing both instant reference applications has not been explained reasonably, therefore, reference applications are dismissed in limine for being time barred, along with listed applications."
5. Accordingly, instant Reference Application being time barred is hereby dismissed in limine.