SYED SARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, MEMBER JUDICIAL.----The Collector of Customs, M.C.C., Custom House, Peshawar (appellant herein) has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.1181 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017, passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Islamabad whereby replaced body of vehicle was released against 30% redemption fine in addition to payment of customs duty/taxes leviable thereon.
2. Brief facts of the case as per available record are that the Customs Mobile Squad, Abbottabad on 11.07.2017, intercepted a non-duty paid, Toyota Hilux Surf (Body changed) bearing Registration No.APL-2016 coming from Haripur. On demand, driver/owner of the vehicle namely Fand Bin Faredoon son of Faredoon failed to produce legal import documents of the vehicle. However, he produced photo copies of Auction Certificate C.No.25-AucNeh/SWH/2013/18418 dated 25.02.2014 and other relevant documents showing Engine No. as Nil. The vehicle in question was brought to the office of Customs Mobile Squad Abbottabad for want of verification.
The documents produced by the appellant were referred to Deputy Collector, Auction MCC, Custom House, Air Port Road. Quetta vide C.No.456 dated 13.07.2017 for verification, who replied vide their letter C.No.25-AucNeh/SWH/2013/1746 dated 21.07.2017 that "Scrutiny of record reveals that the photocopy of Delivery Order No.1350 dated 03.07.2013, C.No.25-Auc/Veh/SWH/2013/18418 dated 25.02.2014 and Letter C.No.25-Auc/Veh/SWH/2013/23142 dated 05.05.2014 were found genuine with the office record."
The vehicle was also referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad vide letter C.No.579 dated 20.07.2017, reported vide their Lab.No.1136/2015 dated 21 07.2017 that "No other number has been developed after chemical treatment".
After thorough verification, it was revealed that Model of the said vehicle as per auction documents was 1992 while as per seat belt, the same was of Model 1994. Keeping in view the above owner of the vehicle failed to produce any legal import documents of the body of 1994 model vehicle being mounted on the chassis frame bearing No. LN130- 0054956 Model, 1991 as per VIN/frame number. It was, therefore confirmed that the vehicle was non-duty paid body changed.
3. Subsequently, on completion of the requisite formalities, the matter was placed before the Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Islamabad, Camp Office, Custom House, Peshawar who vide Order-in-Original No.1181 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017, released the replaced body of the vehicle against 30% redemption fine in addition to payment of leviable duty and taxes. Hence the instant appeal.
4. Argument heard. Record perused.
5. The vehicle in question under fire in this case was purchased by the appellant in an auction conducted by the Model Customs Collectorate, Quetta. The customs seizing agency seized the vehicle on the suspicion as the MCC, Quetta auction 1991, model vehicle whereas, the rear seat belt was found of 1992 model. The auction documents in respect of the vehicle have been verified by the said Collectorate. The vehicle was also subjected to chemical examination. According to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Islamabad:- "No number other than the above mentioned has been decipherable after chemical treatment."
6. As it is admitted that the vehicle in question was purchased in open auction conducted by the MCC, Quetta and the purchaser, being a successful bidder, after fulfilling all liabilities, purchased the vehicle. Since the chassis is the same which is the main indication that there is no dispute in the legal status of the vehicle while the rest of the body has been changed and non-duty paid body has been mounted on the duty paid chassis frame. The learned Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication) vide his order dated 22.12.2017 rightly given an option to the rightful owner of the vehicle to redeem the replaced body on payment of leviable duty and taxes plus redemption @ 30% of the customs value of the aforementioned replaced body of the vehicle. There is no infirmity, illegality or mis-reading and non-reading of evidence in the order of the learned Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication), which is confirmed.
7. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.