ATHAR MINALLAH, C.J.--- Sahibzada Fazal Wahid [hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant "] has proposed for our consideration questions of law stated to have arisen out of judgment, dated 30.10.2017, passed by the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the " Tribunal "].
2. The vehicle registered in the name of the Applicant was initially detained by officials of the respondent Department. The latter sent the vehicle to the Forensic Science Laboratory , Police Headquarters Islamabad [hereinafter referred to as the "Laboratory "] for chemical examination of the chassis number . The Laboratory vide letter , dated 28.09.2016, reported that the chassis number frame was "cut and welded". The Department on receiving the report from the Laborato ry, seized the vehicle and forwarded a contravention report to the adjudicating authority . The Additional Collector Customs issued show-cause notice, dated 21.12.2016. Written reply , dated 28.01.2016, was submitted on behalf of the Applicant. In paragraph No. 3 of the written reply a specific stance was taken in order to justify the "tampering" of the chassis number frame. The show-cause notice was subsequently decided vide Order-in-Original No. 13/2017, dated 22.02.2017 [hereinafter referred to as the "Order- in-Original "]. The vehicle described in the Order-in-Original was ordered to be outrightly confiscated because the adjudicating officer had concluded that offence under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1969 "] stood established. The Applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment, dated 30.10.2017. A plain reading of the said judgment shows that the Applicant had changed his earlier stance and had taken a different plea before the learned Tribunal i.e. that the vehicle had been cleared by the Department under SRO 568(1)/2008, dated 11.06.2008 [hereinafter referred to as the "SRO, dated 11.06.2008 "]. The learned Tribunal has held that SRO, dated 11.06.2008, was not attracted in case of vehicles which had tampered chassis numbers.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant has been heard at length. He has mainly argued that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the crucial fact that the vehicle had been cleared under SRO, dated 1 1.06.2008.
4. The learned counsel has been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.
5. It is not disputed that the chassis plate of the vehicle was "cut and welded'. The stance taken on behalf of the Applicant at a belated stage, that the vehicle had been cleared under SRO, dated 11.06.2008, amounts to admitting that it had been smuggled. This stance was not taken during the adjudication proceedings. Moreover , no document was placed on record to establish the clearance of the vehicle under SRO, dated 11.06.2008. The said notification explicitly excluded vehicles having tampered engines or chassis numbers. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that a cut and welded chassis frame would be covered within the ambit of the expression 'tampered'.
Nonetheless, the onus was on the Applicant to establish during the adjudication proceedings or before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle had been lawfully cleared under SRO, dated 11.06.2008. The Applicant had indeed failed in discharging this onus and, therefore, the concurrent findings do not suf fer from any illegality .
6. The questions of law proposed for our consideration are, therefore, answered in the light of the above discussion.
7. The office is directed to submit a copy of this order to the Registrar of the learned Tribunal under seal of this Court as required under subsection (5) of section 196 of the Act of 1969.