SYED SARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).-- This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.01 of 2018, dated 21.12.2017 passe d by the Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Mauve Area, Islamabad, whereby the learned Collector of Customs (Adjudication) order for the recovery of short payment of duty/taxes`to the tune of Rs.4,020,094/- with imposition of personal penalty of Rs.1,000,000/- on the appellant i.e Messrs Mediline Technology , Peshawar ( hereinafter called appellant ).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs)-FBR, Peshawar received a credible information that comm ercial invoice bearing No. 281240.1.1, dated 05.09.2017 showing value of consignment as US$ 450 furnished to Customs was forwarded through email to the exporter 'M/s Candela Corporation, Boston, USA' for verification of its genuineness. In reply , the said exporting firm informed that the invoice furnished to Customs in not authentic. The said exporter provided the original shipping documents/commercial invoice issued to importer against the shipment under reference. Scrutiny of these original documents/invoice received from exporter/supplier informed that the actual value of consignment under scrutiny was US$ 3500/-. The importer thus succeeded in clearance of aforesaid goods from Customs by mis-declaring the correct value using forged/fake/fabricate d invoice. This resulted in evasion/short payment of duty/taxes of Rs.
1,198,825/- as provided in the table below:- Actual V alue Assessed V alue Differential Value (Col 1- Col 2)Amount of duty/taxes on dif ferential value 1 2 3 4 Rs.3,766,719/- Rs.53,810/- Rs.3,712,909/- CD = Rs.1 11388/-, ST = Rs.656,442/- AST = Rs.1 15,843/-, IT = Rs.278,023/-, ACD = Rs.37,129/- Total = Rs.1,198,825/ The aforesaid consignment was accordingly seized under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969, after issuance of notice under Section 171 ibid to all concerned for committing offence of mis-declaration as specified in sections 32(1) and 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, punishable under section 156 (1)(14) of the Customs Act, 1969.
4. Data of previous Imports of M/s. Mediline Technology , Peshawar was also scrutinized. The analysis shows that the said importer had adopted the same modus operandi i.e. using fake/forged/altered invoices to mis-declare the actual value of imported goods and succeeded in clearance of following consig nments of skin laser treatment equipments imported from the same firm of USA i.e M/s. Candela from AFU, Peshawar . The importer thus inflicted huge revenue loss to the Government Exchequer as per table below:- GD No. and DateActual V alue Declared/Assessed ValueDifference of Col 2 - Col 3Duty/taxes on dif ferential value 1 2 3 4 5 PPAF-HC-87 dated, 20-7- 2017Rs.185,645/- Rs.10,767/- Rs.174,878/- Rs.56,463/- PPAF-HC- 1411 dated 19-6-2017Rs.343,163/- Rs.46,941/- Rs.296,222/- Rs.95,645/- PPAF-HC- 1222 dated, 4- 5-2017Rs.5,335,123/- Rs.256,086/- Rs.5,079,037/- Rs.1,481,1 19/- PPAF-HC-346 dated, 13-10- 2016Rs.3,727,445/- Rs.47,924/- Rs.3,679,521/- Rs.1,188,042 Total Rs.9,591,376/- Rs.361,718/- Rs.9,229,658 Rs.2,821,269
5. It is thus obvious from the above facts that aforesaid importer succeeded to clear the higher value goods from Customs control on furnishing fake/forged/altered invoices of lower value which resulted in evasion/short payment of Rs. 4,020,094/- on account of leviable duty and taxes.
6. From the afore stated facts, it was evident that M/s Mediline Technology Peshawar (NTN 2839831-9) in collusion with concerned Customs staff made false declaration to conceal correct value of goods and knowingly submitted fake/forged/altered invoices which resulted in specified in sections 32(1) and 79(1) read with Rule 108 of the Customs Rules, 2001 notified vide SRO 450(1)/2001, dated 18.06.2001 attracting penal action under Clause 14 of Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with SRO 499(1)/2009, dated 13.06.2009 besides recovery of aforementioned amount of duty/taxes. An FIR was also registered against the importer for criminal prosecution.
7. Subsequently , a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on 10.11.2017. The learned Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Islamabad, vide Order-in-Original No.01 of 2018, dated 21.12.2017, ordered to the appellant to deposit the short payment of duty/taxes to the tune of Rs.4,020,094/-, and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs.1,000,000/- upon him. Hence the appeal to this Tribunal.
8. I heard Mr. Shaukat Ali Qureshi, learn ed Advocate for the appellant as well as Mr.. Abbas Bakhtiar , Advocate along with Mr . Mussawir Ali Shah, Intelligence Of ficer/Departmental Representative for the respondents and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.
9. In this case, the appellant imported Hair Reduction Laser Machine, Model-Gyag, Pro-U from United State of America (USA). After filing GD, the customs authorities examined, assessed and cleared the consignment under Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1969 and was released the goods under Section 83 of the Customs Act, 1969. After clearance for the custom, while the consignment was shifting by the appellant from the Air Freight Unit. The Customs Intelligence at the out gate intercepted and seized the imported goods for further scrutiny and examination, and found that the actual value of the consignment was US$ 3500 and thus the Customs Intelligence blamed the importer for mis-declaration incorrect value for using fake/forged/fabricated invoice and resulted to evasion, short payment of duty and taxes Rs.1,198,825 as provided in the table below:- Actual V alue Assessed V alue Differential Value (Col 1- Col 2)Amount of duty/taxes on dif ferential value 1 2 3 4 Rs.3,766,719/- Rs.53,810/- Rs.3,712,909/- CD = Rs.1 11388/-, ST = Rs.656,442/- AST = Rs.1 15,843/-, IT = Rs.278,023/-, ACD = Rs.37,129/- Total = Rs.1,198,825/ and on the same assessment the previous consignment imported by the appellant were also assessed and scrutinized for the same enhanced rate. The table of the previous consignment is as under:- GD No. and DateActual V alue Declared/Assessed ValueDifference of Col 2 - Col 3Duty/taxes on dif ferential value 1 2 3 4 5 PPAF-HC-87 dated, 20-7- 2017Rs.185,645/- Rs.10,767/- Rs.174,878/- Rs.56,463/- PPAF-HC- 1411 dated 19-6-2017Rs.343,163/- Rs.46,941/- Rs.296,222/- Rs.95,645/- PPAF-HC- 1222 dated, 4- 5-2017Rs.5,335,123/- Rs.256,086/- Rs.5,079,037/- Rs.1,481,1 19/- PPAF-HC-346 dated, 13-10- 2016Rs.3,727,445/- Rs.47,924/- Rs.3,679,521/- Rs.1,188,042 Total Rs.9,591,376/- Rs.361,718/- Rs.9,229,658 Rs.2,821,269
10. The previous goods which had been analysed and assessed, and scrutinized on the assessment of the present consignment had already been cleared by the Customs authorities and were not present for the examination, scrutiny and assessment of the Customs authorities. The respondents assuming higher rate on the basis of an electronic e-mail, wherein the goods were shown on higher rate, this electronic letter has not been signed by any person neither it has been attested as a true copy of the original as per Article 78-A of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which is reproduced as under:- 78-A. Proof of electronic signature and electronic document- If an electronic document is alleged to be signed or to have been generated wholly or in part by any person through the use of an information system, and where such allegation is denied, the application of a security procedure to the signature or the electronic document must be proved.
11. This issue was discussed in a case titled The Collector of Customs of Central Excise and Land Customs, West Zone, Chittagong v. Imdad Ali" reported in 1969 SCMR Page No. 708. The relevant is reproduced as under:- If the goods were, as in the present case, of a type which had market of its own in the country of its origin we fail to understand why the office of the Deputy High Commissioner could not have obtained the official market rates prepared by some recognized trade association and then certified the same to be the authentic rates complied by the said association in respect of that commodity for over a period. At any rate, we see no reason why the office of the Deputy High Commissioner could not have disclosed the source from which the rates mentioned in the proformas were obtained, or as to bow the averages were prepared.
12. Similar questions has also been relied by the Hon'ble Sindh High Court, Karachi in case titled "Collector of Customs v. M/s China Natiohal Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, Karachi" reported in 2010 PTD 343 , which is reproduced as under:-
17. The above observation is made by relying upon an earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan referred to therein and it has been empha sized that the Embassy concerned should be asked to attach the price list or certificate from the traders or their own certified assessment in the relevant country and short of this the version of the Embassy should not be accepted or relied upon. There is no price list or certificate from the traders attached to the letter dated 20.02.2004 of the Emba ssy of Pakistan nor the Commercial Consular has given his own certified assessment regarding the value of the imported consignment. Thus, in our view the demand raised by the demand notice dated 17.03.2004 does not find support as to the valuation of the imported consignment and to this extent we agree with the finding of the Tribun al that it is based merely upon heres ay and does not reflect either transaction value or the correct, value of the imported consignment.
13. The method for proper verification of the goods is that the Customs authorities should have approached to the Commercial Attach of Pakistan in USA and he should be asked to attach the price list or certificate from the traders or their own certified assessment in the relevant country , which the Customs authorities did not observe.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that under Section 3E of the Customs Act, 1969 the Board has the power to specify the functions, jurisdiction and powers of the Directorates. The Board exercising its power under Sections 3E and 4 of the Customs Act, 1969, can empower/authorize the officer of the Directorate General, Intelligence and Investigation, Central Board of Revenue, specified in column (2) of the table below to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the officers of customs under the provisions of the said Act specified in column
(3) of the table and to invoke all the relevant provisions of the said Act and rules made there under is so warranted, within the area of their respective jurisdiction provided in SRO 486(I)/2007, dated 9th June, 2007: TABLE S.No Officers Provisions of the Customs Act, 1969
(1) (2) (3)
1. Director General of Intelligence and Investigation.Sections 17, 26, 48, 60, 62, 91,92,1 11,139,157(2), 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168(1), (3) and (4), 169, 171, 174, 175, 185-F , 186, 193, 194-A, 196, 197, 198 and 199.
2. Director General of Intelligence and Investigation.Sections 17, 26, 48, 60, 62, 91, 92, 111, 139, 157(2), 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 (1),(3) and (4),169, 171, 174, 175, 185-F , 186, 193, 194-A, 196, 97,198, 199 and 201.
3. Additional Director of Intelligence and Investigation.Sections 17, 26, 48, 60, 62, 91, 92, 111, 139, 157(2), 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163,164, 165, 166, 167, 168(1), (3) and (4), 169, 171, 174,175, 185-F , 186, 193, 194-A, 196, 197, 198, 199 and 201.
4. Assistant Director and Deputy Director of Intelligence andSections 17, 26, 48, 60, 62, 91, 92, 111, 139, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, Investigation. 167, 168(1),(3) and (4), 169, 171, 174, 175, 186, 193, 197, 198, 199 and 201.
5. Principal Appraisers, SPS and Superintendents.Sections 17, 26, 48, 60, 62,91,92,139, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 (1),(3) and (4), 169(1)(2) and (3), 171, 174, 175, 186, 198 and 199.
6. Senior Intelligence Officers, Deputy Superintendents, Appraising Officers and V aluation Of ficer/IPSSections 17, 26, 48, 62, 91, 92, 139, 158, 159, 160,.161, 164, 165, 167, 168 (1),(3) and (4), 169(1),(2) and (3), 171, 174, 175, 186, 198 and 199.
7. Intelligence Officers, Inspectors, Preventive Officers, Senior Preventive Officer and Examining Officers.Sections 17, 48, 62, 91, 92, 139, 158, 159, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167, 168 (1),(3) and (4), 169(1),
(2) and (3), 171, 175, 198 and 199.
15. The contravention report against the appellant is under Section 32(1)(2) and 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with Rule 108 of Customs Rules, 2001, notified vide SRO.450(I)/2001 dated 18.06.2001, punishable under Clause 14 of subsection (1) of Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, read with SRO 1499(1)/2009, dated 13.06.2009. The Intelligence after processing the goods from customs authorities and clearance had seized and E- blocked the goods of the appellant and seizure report was registered under Section 168 of the Act ibid. Section 168 of the Act, the authorized appropriate officer to seize any goods liable to confiscation under this Act. Section 2(b) of the Customs Act, 1969 define the appropriate officer to whom such functions have been assigned by or under this Act or the rules made there under . The powers in Notification No.SRO.371(1)/2002, dated 15.06.2002, assign the functions of the appropriate officer, referred to in various sections of the Customs Act, 1969, which are specified in column (2) of the Table of the said SRO to the officers of customs mentioned in the corresponding entry in column
(3) of the said table. At Sr.No.88 of this Notification, the appropriate officer under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 is an Inspector/Preventive Of ficer/Examiner: TABLE S.No. Provision of the Customs Act, 1969 Officers of Customs
(1) (2) (3)
1. Section 24. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
2. Section 25A. Additional Collector of Customs.
3. Section 32(4),-
(i) read with section 32(2); and
(ii) read with section 32 (3) Officer of Customs competent to adjudicate the case under section 179 of the Customs Act. 1969.
Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
4. Section 44. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Ministerial clerk.
5. Section 45. Deputy Superintendent /Inspector .
6. Section 47 Deputy Superintendent/Inspector/ Preventive Of ficer/Appraiser .
7. Section 48 Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
8. Section 49 Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
9. Section 50 Inspector/Preventive Of ficer.
10. Section 51 Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
11. Section 52 Inspector/Preventive Of ficer.
12. Section 53(2),-
(i) clauses (a) and (b); and
(ii) clause (c)Ministerial clerk/ Inspector/Preventive Of ficer/ Examiner .
Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
13. Section 54(2),-
(i) clauses (a) and (b); and
(ii) clause (c)Ministerial clerk/Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
14. Section 55(1),-
(i) clauses (a) and (b); and
(ii) clauses (c)Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
15. Section 56 Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
16. Section 57 Assistant Collector .
17. Section 58 Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
18. Section 60 Deputy Superintendent/inspector/ Preventive Of ficer/Appraiser .
19. Section 62 Deputy Superintendent/Inspector/ Preventive Of ficer/Appraiser .
20. Section 64 Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
21. Section 65 Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
22. Section 66 Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
23. Section 68 Deputy Superintendent/Inspector Preventive Service/Appraiser .
24. Section 74 Inspector/Preventive Of ficer.
25. Section 75 Inspector/Preventive Of ficer.
26. Section 76 Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
27. Section 77 Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
28. Section 78(1)
Section 78(3)
Section 78(4) Superintendent/Principal Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
Superintendent/Principal Appraiser
29. Section 79 (1).
Section 79 (2).
Section 79 (3).Ministerial Clerk/Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
Superintendent/Principal Appraiser Assistant Collector .
30. Section 80. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
31. Section 81. Assistant Collector .
32. Section 82. Assistant Collector .
33. Section 83. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
34. Section 86 Assistant Collector .
35. Section 88 (1). Section 88 (4). Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
Deputy Superintendent /Inspector Preventive Service/Appraiser .
36. Section 91. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner
37. Section 92. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
38. Section 93. Deputy Superintendent / Inspector Preventive Service/Appraiser .
39. Section 94(1).
Section 94(2). Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
Assistant Collector .
40. Section 96. Assistant Collector .
41. Section 98. Additional Collector of Customs.
42. Section 101. Deputy Superintendent /Inspector Preventive Service/Appraiser .
43. Section 107. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
44. Section 1 11. Assistant Collector .
45. Section 1 12. Assistant Collector .
46. Section 1 13. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
47. Section 1 14. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser
48. Section 1 15. Assistant Collector .
49. Section 1 16. Collector of Customs.
50. Section 1 17. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
51. Section 1 19. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
52. Section 121. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
53. Section 124. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser
54. Section 129. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser
55. Section 130. Deputy Superintendent/Inspector Preventive Service/Appraiser .
56. Section 131,- (i) clause (a) sub-clause (i)
(ii) clause (a) sub- clause(iii); and
(iii) clause (b) Ministerial Clerk/Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
Superintendent/Inspector Preventive Service/Principal Appraiser .
Deputy Superintendent/Inspector Preventive Service/Appraiser .
57. Section 132. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser
58. Section 133. Assistant Collector .
59. Section 134. Assistant Collector .
60. Section 135. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
61. Section 137. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
62. Section 139. Inspector/Preventive Of ficer.
63. Section 143. Deputy Superintendent/Inspector Preventive Service.
64. Section 145. Ministerial Clerk/Inspector/Examiner .
65. Section 147 Ministerial Clerk/Inspector / Preventive Of ficer/Examiner
66. Section 148. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
67. Section 149. Superintendent/Principal . .
Appraiser .
68. Section 151. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
69. Section 153. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
70. Section 156(1).
(i) Appropriate of ficer to sanction removal from one warehouse to another under sections 99 and 100;
(ii) Removal of such goods as samples under section 94; and
(iii) in all other cases of removal of goods from a warehouse.Collector of Customs.
Assistant Collector .
71. Section 156(5). Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
72. Section 156(16). Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
73. Section 156(26). Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
74. Section 156(27). Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner ..
75. Section 156(28). . Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
76. Section 156(37). Inspector/preventive Officer/Examiner .
77. Section 156(49). Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
78. Section 156(50). Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
79. Section 156(54). Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
80. Section 156(58). Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
81. Section 156(70). Inspector/Principal Appraiser .
82. Section 157. Officer of customs competent to adjudicate the case under section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969.
83. Section 158. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
84. Section 160. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
85. Section 161(1). Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
86. Section 164. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
87. Section 165. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
88. Section 168. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
89. Section 169. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
90. Section 174. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
91. Section 183(1). Section 183(2). Officer of customs competent to adjudicate the case under section 177 of the Customs Act, 1969.
Superintendent/Principal
92. Section 186. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
93. Section 194. Assistant Collector .
94. Section 197. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
95. Section 198. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
96. Section 199. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
97. Section 202. Assistant Collector .
98. Section 208. Inspector/Preventive Officer/Examiner .
99. Section 210. Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
100. Section 223 Officer of Customs competent to adjudicate the case under section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969/Collector Appeals
101. Section 224,
(i) read with section 22 proviso (delay in re-importation of goods Produced or manufactured in Pakistan); (i-a) read with section 33 (delay in claiming refund of customs duties);
(ii) read with section 96(3) (delay in discharge of demand for rent for dues);
(iii) read with section 107(2) (delay in Submission of application for clearance of warehoused goods);
(iv) read with section 1 12(2)(delay in payment of duty etc.);
(v) read with section 198 (delay in filing of appeal); and
(vi) read with section 199(2) (delay in Taking delivery of samples.). Up to one year , Collector of Customs.
Up to one year , Collector of Customs.
Assistant Collector .
Superintendent/Principal Appraiser Assistant Collector .
Collector Appeals.
Superintendent/Principal Appraiser .
16. Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 may authorized the appropriate officer to seize any goods liable to confiscation without determining the fact that whether goods of the appellants are liable to -confiscation or otherwise. The goods were seized and a show cause notice was issued thereafter to the appellants. The customs intelligence after seizure made an inquiry and investigation and thereafter reassessed the goods. The relevant provision of law for re-investigation and inquiry is provided by Section 26A of the Act ibid and after the proceeding the goods has to be re-assessed under section 80 of the Act. The appropriate officer for conducting an inquiry of post clearance audit under the provision of Sections 32, 32A, 32B, is Director General as per Notification No.SRO 500(1)/2009, dated 13.06.2009. A bare perusal of Sections 168 and 171 of the Customs Act, shows that the Legislature has provided a protection to the citizens against any high-handedness and arbitrary act on the part of tax officials. Thus, the condition precedent for seizure of goods under Section 168 read with Section 171 of the Customs Act, is that before seizure of goods the appropriate officer should record reasons in writing as to why the goods are liable to confiscation and the use of the expression that the officer or other person making such seizure is required to inform in writing the grounds of such seizure is indicative of the fact that the opinion should not be generalized and vague. There should be specified grounds forming basis of opinion that the goods are liable to confiscation, failing which the initiation of proceeding shall be violative of the statutory provisions and would be bound to be struck off. The law has not empowered the Customs officials to seize the goods without any reasonable grounds reduced in writing and without communication of the grounds to the person concerned and thereafter hold a roving and fishing inquiry for the purpose of creating grounds for the seizure of goods. The reasons/grounds for seizure of goods should precede or at least coincide with the seizure of goods and should not be result of a fishing and roving inquiry after the seizure. If the seizure is made under Section 168, the grounds recorded in writing should contain the reasons as to why the goods are liable to confiscation. In the present case, the Customs Intelligence has acted in gross violation of the law and has in fact seized the goods, which were out of charge after due examination by the Appraisement staff who are appropriate officers under the Customs Act, and has therefore, clearly over stepped the jurisdiction vested in an appropriate officer. We should hasten to add that in the present case, the Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs)-FBR, Peshawar is not an appropriate of ficer for the purpose Section 168 or Section 32 of the Customs Act.
17. In a case of M/s. Shahzad Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan, reported in 2005 PTD 23 the Hon'ble Sindh High Court, Karachi held that if the custom s authorities have the prior information, why not the same was based to the relevant officer acting under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 and was exam ining the GD could pass on the same to the Customs Appraisement Department, the officials whereof are the appropriate officers for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. If any information was available with the Customs Intelligence, they could pass on the same to the Customs Appraisement Department, the officials whereof are the appropriate officers for the purpose of initiation of proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act. If the Customs Intelligence was of the view that the Appraisement officials were in collusion with the petitioner he could pass on the information to the senior officers in the hierarchy of Appraisement as the senior officers could exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred or imposed upon any officer subordinate to him as provided in Section 4 of the Customs Act.
18. On the other hand, the custom is of the view that the appellants have filed fake invoices and this is a very reason we contacted the concerned authorities for issuance of invoices of the goods in question. The customs second argument is that no proper reply or evidence was provided by the appellan ts herein of the allegation of the show cause notice.
19. In view of the above discussion, I allowed this appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original No.01 of 2018, dated 21.12.2017 of the Collector of Customs ( Adjudication ), Islamabad. This case is disposed of f accordingly .