FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J. The instant special criminal acquittal appeal is filed by the Customs Department through the appellant against the acquit tal judgment dated 25-05-2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Customs and Taxation), Karachi in Case No. 64/2016 (State v. Riaz Haider and another ). Through the impugned judgment, the respondents were acquitted from the charge of mis-declaration and incorrect exemption/concession et cetera.
2. The prosecution case is that the DGII-FBR, Regional Office received information that Messrs Sabiha Anees Trading Enterprises (NTN-1357858), Lahore are involved in unlawful and illegal claim of zero rated exemption of sales tax under 6th Schedule (S 3# 80) and reduced the rate of Sales Tax Exemption under 8th Schedule (S # 9) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 on import of Processed Cheese (HS Code 0 406.3000) aiming at to evade duty/taxes leviable thereon. On such information, monitoring was kept on under clearance consignment imported from Germany by the said firm. The confinement/container No. MNBU-3131497 having been cleared assigned to the staff to get through yellow channel from MCC Abridgement (East), Karachi vide Goods Declaration No. KAPE-HC- 124941 dated 15-03-2016 filed through clearing agent Messrs R.H. Enterprises (CHAL-1 175). The said consignment was online blocked and in presence of the witnesses and representatives of the import/clearing agent examination was conducted by the staff of DG and instead of declared goods, processed cheese weighing 22.387 MT (in retail baking of 120 g, 140 g, 360 g and 800 g) was found. From the perusal of GD, it was observed that the importer has unlawfully and illegally claimed and reduced the rate of sales tax, which was available to simple cheese and not processed cheese. The importer has imported considerable quantity of goods during July 2015 to March 2016, as such evasion of sales tax was estimated upto the tune of Rs. 8,56,206/- which is recoverable from the importer , hence FIR No.91/2016 was lodged on 22-03-2016.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents are responsible for causing huge loss to the exchequer by mis-declaring goods. He submits that sufficient material and evidence produced before the trial Court but the learned Presiding Officer could not appreciate the same. He contends that the case may be remanded to the trial Court for a de novo trial.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution during the trial. According to him, the prosecution witness Muhammad Shahid, who is the complainant, during cross-examination admits that there was no mis-declaration in GD. According to him, it is actually the mistake of customs officials as in both 6th and 8th Schedules, the words 'Processed Cheese and 17% Sales Tax on import' are missing, as such the processed cheese was treated by the customs officials themselves in the category of simple cheese.
5. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the relevant record. I have also scanned the impugned judgment, which is a speaking judgment in which everything is mentioned with detailed discussion. The actual reason for the discrepancy in GD is the same as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents. Since there was no sales tax category as 'processed cheese' is mentioned in both the referred schedules; therefore, the customs officials were treating the processed cheese under the category of simple cheese. Complainant Muhammad Shahid in his deposition has admitted this mistake and he has stated that even the software of the customs department was carrying this mistake. It is settled law that for criminal responsibility; the prosecution has to establish criminal intention or `mens rea', which is missing in the instant case. I am of the considered view that in the existing position of affairs, there is no need to interfere in the impugned judge ment, which otherwise does not devoid settled principles of appreciation of evidence. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant special criminal acquittal appeal is meritless; hence the same is dismissed.
6. The above are the reasons for my short order dated 26-09-2018 through which the instant special criminal acquittal appeal was dismissed.