MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETH I, J.--- The judgment dated 04.10.2016, passed by learned Customs Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, Lahore ("Appellate Tribunal") is assailed, through this customs reference and following questions have been proposed for our opinion:-- (a). "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal by holding that the applicant was required to achieve ,a target of export of the total input goods has not mis-construed the provisions of Rule 352(6)(a) of the Customs Rules, 2001 enacted vide SRO No. 450(1)/2001.
(b). Whether in case of conflict between penal provisions of Clauses 1 & 10-A of S. 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 and Rule 344 of the Customs Rules, 2001, the provisions of former should not prevail over the later .
(c). Whether renewal of license of the applicant on 16.11.2015, during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal shall not amount to setting aside of order-in-original No. 9A(01)93-94/Pt-1/924 under S. 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 against which the appeal before the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal was preferred by the applicant.
(d). Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Customs Appellate Tribunal has passed a non- speaking order in sheer derogation of S. 24-A of the General Clauses Act"?
2. Learned counsel for applicant-taxpayer submits that since material aspects of the matter have not been dilated upon by learned fora below , hence, impugned orders, being non-speaking, are not sustainable under the law.
Further submits that he would be satisfied if impugned orders are set-aside and matter is remanded to the Collector (Appraisement) for decision afresh, strictly in accordance with law .
3. When confronted, learned counsel for respondent-department has not seriously opposed the above submission of learned counsel for applicant-taxpayer .
4. Heard. Available record perused.
5. Perusal of record shows that the stance of applicant is that during pendency of appeal, the Collector of Customs renewed the license of applicant-taxpayer for a period commencing from 01.01.2014 till 31.12.2016, as a result order-in-original passed against the applicant-taxpayer had lost its efficacy and further as per law, there is no restriction/set targets for export of the goods. It is evident that core issues raised by learned counsel for applicant have not been addressed in the impugned orders. Hence, impugned orders do not appear to be in conformity with the provisions of Section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897 and law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-II Karachi v. Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi (2002 SCMR 527 = 2002 PTD 419 ).
6. In view of above, we are inclined to set-aside the impugned orders and matter is remanded to the Collector (Appraisement) for decision afresh through speaking order , strictly in accordan ce with law, after hearing the applicant-taxpayer and all concerned.
7. This reference application is disposed of accordingly .
8. Office shall send a copy of this order under seal of the Court to the Appellate Tribunal as per Section 196(5) of the Customs Act, 1969.