SYED SARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER JUDICIAL.---- This appeal has been filed by Collector of Customs (Preventive), through Assistant Collector (Legal Division) MCC Peshawar (appellant herein) against the Order in Appeal No.12/2019 dated 15-1-2019 passed by the Collector of Customs (App eals), Islamabad, Camp Office, Customs House, Peshawar .
2. Briefly facts of the Case are on 14.09.2018 at about 1300 hours, an information was received by the Superintendent Customs Abbottabad to the effect that a non-duty paid Mazda Mini Dumper (06-Wheeler) bearing Reg: No. C-2510/Buner having Chassis No.WGLAD-177735 Model 1994 (as per R/Book), 1992 (as per website), is coming from Abbottabad. The subject vehicle was intercepted by the Customs staff near RTO Chowk, Abbottabad.
On demand, the driver/owner of the vehicle namely Abdul Wasai son of Noor Muhammad Jan, (Afghan citizen) resident of Abbottabad District Abbottabad produced a Registration Book of his vehicle but failed to produce any legal import documents of the said vehicle. The vehicle bearing suspicious to be non-duty paid smuggled one, was brought to the Office of Customs Mobile Squad Abbottabad and was detained under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1969, after due approval from the competent authority for want of verification.
3. Subsequently , after completion of requisite formalities, the matter was placed before Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Islamabad, Cam p Office, Custom House, Peshawar who vide his O.N.O No. 328/2018 Dated 16.11.2018 order outright confiscation of the seized vehicle in favor of the State in terms of Section 156(1)(8)
(89) read with Section 3(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950.
4. Being aggrieved of the above O.N.O the appellant went in appeal before the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) Islamabad, Camp Office Custom House Peshawar , who vide his Orde r in Appeal No. 12/2019 Dated 15.01.2019 accepted the appeal of the appellant and set aside the impugned O.N.O. No. 328/2018 Dt. 16.11.2018.
Hence, the instant appeal on the following grounds:- a. That the order passed by learned Collector (Appeals) is against the law and facts of the case. b. That the learned Collector (Appeals) has totally , ignored the relevant provisions of law . c. That the learned Collector (Appeals) has shown extra ordinary leniency in favour of respondent, ignoring (part-iii) of Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 969 is unjustified against the settle principle of law and judgment of Superior Judiciary . d. That mere production of registration book does not mean that the vehicle has legally been imported. This aspect was ignored by the appealing authority . In the absence of such evidence of import/auction documents it is proved that the vehicle is non-duty paid and brought into the country through unauthorized route. e. That the issuance of Registration Book by MRA on the solitary reason of burnt record and vandalism is an after through and has become a practice of registering non duty paid vehicle retrospectively . f. That the impugned order will pave an open way to the cartel of non-duty paid vehicles legalizing this illegal trade under the guise of registration book issued by MRAs/ET Os and will cause irreparable loss to government revenue. g. That in the absence of proof/evidence regarding import of vehicle and payment of leviable duty and taxes, no influences can be drawn except that the vehicle is non-duty paid and brought into the country through route other than declared under Sections 9 and 10 of the Customs Act, 1969. h. That the learned Collector (Appeals) badly failed to consider that whether respondent has produced any valid documents which could prove that the vehicle is legally imported one In order to verify the genuineness of documents, the Excise and Taxation Officer/Motor Registration Authority , Buner/Jaf farabad was requested to provide the documents on the basis of which the above vehicle was registered, in response thereof, they only confirmed the registration particulars and did not produced any import documents of the vehicle. i. That under the Customs Act, 1969 burden of proof that the vehicle is duty paid is on the owner but here this important aspect has not been taken into consideration. j. That respondent has not discharged his burden of proof in accordance to the rules and regulation rather active connivance of respondent is very much proved by producing irrelevant documents but still the vehicle has been released contrary to the rules and regulation. That the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) decided the case on the basis of surmises and conjunctions. k. That the vehicle is non-duty pall and brought into the country through un-authorized route other that declared under Sections 9 and 10 of the Custcms Act, 1969 prima facie established that no duty and taxes have been paid. l. That the documentary evidence with regard to legal import of the said vehicle was not produced at any stage which un-doubtly rests on the person to prove in terms of section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969. That the registration of vehicle was made with the connivance of the Excise Staff to hoodwink the Customs authorities and defraud the public exchequer . m. That it is not the genuineness of the documents but the genuineness of the vehicle which the owner miserably failed to discharge. n. That the adjudication authority (Collector Appeals) has transgressed the Authority and Mandate of law when it is proved that the vehicle has not import documents and non-duty paid. o. That smuggling has become a menace to national interest and causes severe damage to the public exchequer which needs to be curbed.
5. Arguments heard and case file perused with the able assistance of representative of the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The vehicle in question was registered with MRA Jaffarabad and later on after providing NOC of Jaffarabad the same was registered with MRA Buner . The customs authority has demanded the import documents from the owner of the vehicle, who failed to provide the import documents and the vehicle was seized which was released by Collector of Appeals vide his order dated 06.12.2018. The vehicle in question is of 1994 model and was registered with MRA Jaffarabad on 29.09.1994. The appellant thereafter transfer and registered the vehicle with MRA Buner . The vehicle was running on roads till the date of seizure. The registration of the vehicle is sufficient proof of the fact that the vehicle was legally imported in the country because as soon as the vehicle and papers was presented before the MRA for registration. It was their responsibility to check the documents and physically examined the vehicle thoroughly with reference to their genuineness before the registration. Both the registration offices i.e. MRA Jaffarabad and MRA Buner confirmed the registration of the vehicle. This fact can also be not overlo oked that the vehicle in question is 1994 Model whereas the action on charge of smuggling has been taken, on 30.09.2018, after lapse of 25 years and calling upon the party to produce bill of entry and other import documents, is nothing but a joke with the party as by virtue section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Importer and Exporter is liable to maintain importation record/doc uments only for a period of 05 years.
6. In view of the above I am not inclined to interfere in the order of the learned Collector Customs Adjudication dated 06.12.2018. Appeal is dismissed.