This Custom Reference has been filed against the judgment dated 26-09-2024, passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal Quetta Bench, wherein two Custom Appeals Nos.426 of 2024 and 427 of 2024, filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed, and Order-in-Original No.7672 of 2024 dated 31-05- 2024 was set aside and respondent No.1 was held entitled to custody of goods and conveyance.
2. The facts of the case arising in respect of Custom Reference No. 426 of 2024 are that the Collector of Customs, Khuzdar, intercepted a vehicle/Truck bearing Registration No.TLU-816 near FEU, Soorab. During scrutiny, the driver produced Goods Declaration ("GD") No. QCSI-HC-13321.
However, the said GD was not accepted on the ground of mis-declaration and discrepancies between the goods mentioned in the GD and the goods loaded in the vehicle.
3. After the issuance of notice in accordance with law, the matter was adjudicated. The Collector of Customs (Adjudication), vide order-in-original dated 31-05-2024, confiscated the goods outright in favour of the State under Clauses 8 and 89 of Section 156(1) of the Customs. Act, 1969, for violation of Section 2(s) read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06-06-2005, Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969, further read with subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, however, the vehicle and the container were given to the lawful claimant/owner of the seized vehicle to redeem the same against payment of redemption fine equivalent to 20% of the ascertained Customs Value personal penalty of Rs.100,000/- for vehicle and Rs.50,000/- for container, subject to condition contained in the order.
4. The said order was assailed by respondent No.1 arising out of Customs Reference Applications Nos.03 and 04 of 2024, respectively, by way of filing an appeal, which was decided by the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal, Quetta Bench vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.2024 and allowed the appeal as mentioned herein above. Since both the instant Custom References arise out of impugned judgment, as such, are disposed of through this common order.
5. Learned Legal Advisor for the applicant contended that the appellate authority has failed to consider and compare the GD with the goods recovered from the vehicle, as there was no resemblance in the goods present in the vehicle as well as in the GD. Further contended that the release of goods and vehicle, unconditionally, is not provided under the Customs Act, 1969, thus, the impugned judgment is also contrary to the relevant provisions of law and is liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Custom Reference Applications Nos. 03 and 04 of 2024 contended that the goods were lawfully imported after making due taxes of the same through Goods Declaration (GD) and got the goods clearance from the concerned Clearance Collectorate, Quetta, respondent No.1 had valid documentations, but the concerned Customs authorities illegally and unlawfully deprived respondent No.1 from their lawful trade and seized the goods along with the vehicle. That there was no justification for the Customs authorities even to keep the goods and vehicle of the respondent for a while. That the Goods Declaration was rejected on un-reasonable grounds without making verification from the concerned authority, therefore, the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Quetta after considering the above material aspect of the matter, passed the impugned judgment.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that seizure of the goods had taken place by the concerned Custom authorities and respondent No.1 had also supported their case on the basis of GD, but the concerned Custom authorities had not considered the said GD in its true perspectives, which resulted in seizure of the goods and adjudication of the proceedings before the Customs authorities.
8. It appears that the adjudicating authority of Custom has not disputed the "GD" but rejected the plea of the claimant that GD did not match with the seized truck. The said believe of the learned seizing authority was based on assumption as no reference of any other admissible document in this respect was given. The learned appellate tribunal in paras Nos.8 and 10 of the impugned judgment has not only explained about the excess item but also explained the reasons regarding the different number of the truck by going through the documentary evidence. The relevant para No. 10 is reproduced herein below: "All this finally leaves the only objection to be dealt and it is the vehicle number being different.
The DR/MCC has not been able to show if there is any restriction on changing the conveyance/vehicle. These goods were released on 10.04 2024 in Quetta and were thereafter being transported after eight days by the owner to Karachi on 18.04.2024. No such law/Rules have been referred in the Show-Cause Notice which obligates the Appellants to retain the same vehicle. There is also nothing mentioned on this account in the impugned order to show how it constituted violation of the law/Rules."
9. From the above, it reflects that throughout the proceedings only factual questions with regard to excess of their items and difference of truck number was involved which have been properly decided by the tribunal. Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 ("the Act, 1969") envisaged that it is the Tribunal which is the forum meant for determining factual aspect. The High Court under Section 196 of the Act, 1969 is confined to consider question of law. Reliance in this respect is placed on the cases titled as Messrs F.M.Y. Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax and another (2014 SCMR 907), Collector of Customs Karachi and others v. Messrs Haji Ismail Co. and others (2015 SCMR 1383), Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Collector of Custom, E&ST (Adjudication-II) and others (2006 SCMR 425), Collector of Customs, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi v.
Messrs Kaghan Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (2008 SCMR 1538) and Messrs T&N Pakistan Private Limited v. The Collector Customs and others (2022 SCMR 1119).
10. Learned counsel for applicant, instead of making his case on law point, has argued the whole case on factual controversy without reference to any separate/admitted documents, thus, the learned counsel for applicant also could not point out any jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment, as such, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this Court.
In view of the above, Custom Reference Applications Nos. 03 and 04 of 2024 are dismissed.