MR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER.-1. This appeal has been filed by Mr. Salman Safdar, Tulsa Road, Lalazar, Rawalpindi against the Order-in- Original No. 07/97 dated 19.2.1997, passed by the Collector of Customs, Lahore.
2. Facts of the case are that Mr. Salman Sardar filed B.D. Application No. 780 dated 14.4.1996 in the Baggage Section Dry port, Lahore, for clearance of the goods imported by him from abroad in a 40 ft. Container No. G310-6042797-053501 through M/s. S.V. Cargo Movers, Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agents in terms of Passengers (non-tourist) Baggage Import Rules and Transfer of Residence Rules. The contents of the goods, in the subject B.D application were described as "HOUSE HOLD AND PERSONAL EFFECTS"
2. On examination, the goods were found packed in 600 cartons comprising of large number of items* forming "Stock in Trade" of considerable value and not conforming to he standards of "BONA FIDE BAGGAGE" as defined in the "Passengers Non-Tourists (Baggage Import) Rules, 1995 and the "Transfer of Residence (Baggage Import) Rules, 1983. The same were, therefore, imported in violation of the provisions of section 16, 32 and 139 of the Customs Act, 1969, punishable under section 156(1)9, 14 and 70 ibid read with Section 3(1) & (3) of the Import and Export (Control), Act, 1950. The goods were Therefore, seized in terms of section 168(1) of the Customs Act, 11969 for initiating action under relevant provisions of the Law and a case was also registered vide FIR No. 22/96 dated 8.5.1996 with the Superintendent Customs, Anti-Smuggling, Customs House Lahore for prosecution in the Court of Special Judge Customs, Lahore.
3. It was further observed that the respondent in connivance with the clearing Agent made un- authorized had-written additions in the columns of description of goods in the Baggage Declaration after aforesaid detection in an attempt to escape the charge of misdeclaration.
4. Pursuant to the orders of the Lahore High Court, the learned Collector decided the case summarily, as a result of which the goods, after confiscation, were allowed to be redeemed against i.e of 40% of the ascertained value, in addition to payment of duty and taxes leviable thereon.
5. The consultant has challenged the aforesaid orders contending that the value has been ascertained by the learned Collector in an arbitrary and whimsical manner and that he had no authority to impose i.e of 40%. The plea of the consultant is that the value be ordered to be re- appraised by applying the ITP to items such as blankets etc. And that the i.e being unwarranted ought to be remitted straightaway as the goods-in- question are bona i.e baggage and not stock- in-trade.
6. The representative of the Department submits that the subject goods are definitely stock-in- trade and that these were correctly appraised in line with the. Advice tendered by the Controller of Valuation, Karachi. His view is that all what the appellant says is neither factually correct nor otherwise backed by any provision of law. As a matter of fact, the appellant did make quite a naked attempt to bring stock-in-trade in the garb of baggage which got frustrated and, therefore, all the subsequent fuss.
7. The Tribunal has examined the case record and given due consideration to the pleas made by both sides. We are certain and definite that there is hardly any force in the pleas made by the learned Consultant. His arguments being totally OF the mark and illogical deserve no consideration. The orders already passed are, therefore, confirmed and the appeal rejected.