MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER.- (1). This appeal has been filed by M/s. Double Wood Industries, Sialkot against Order-in-Original No. 10/95/LDP dated 15.4.1994 passed by the learned Collector of Customs, Lahore.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the authorities of the Lahore Dry Port had a specific information that an attempt would be made by M/s. Double Wood Industries, Sialkot, to clear the plastic transparent flexible sheets of primary quality by mis- declaring description quantity and quality which subsequently proved to be 100% correct. If this detection was not made, the Government would have been deprived of its legitimate share of revenue to the tune of Rs.
31,18,406. The appellants were, therefore, served with the show cause notice to explain as to why action should not be taken against them under the provisions of sections 156(1), 9 and 14 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950.
3. After proper adjudication of the case, the learned Collector of Customs, Lahore, held that the charges of misdeclaration and attempted evasion against the appellants stood established beyond any shadow of doubt as they had wilfully misdeclared description, quantity, quality and the value of the goods imported by them and that the so-called letter of the supplier produced by them was nothing but an after thought. He, therefore, ordered confiscation of the subject goods under the relevant provisions of law, allowing an option to the appellants to redeem the same against a fine equal to 30% of the ascertained value.
4. The appellants challenged the aforesaid orders before the Tribunal which upheld the substance of the findings of the learned Collector but allowed relief in redemption fine by reducing it from 30% to 10% of the assessable value.
5. Still aggrieved, the appellant moved the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No. 17196 dated 30.11.1995 maintaining that:-
(a) As they had applied for amendment in the Bill of Entry before the examination or appraisement of the goods-in-question, there was no justification for any re-de option fine.
(b) As per the report of the Examination Officer, the subject good were job-lot and not prime- quality type, and should have been appraised accordingly and not otherwise.
(c) As in the case of others, they too were entitled to tare of one Kg for every roll which had been disallowed/denied without assigning any reason therefor.
6. The Honourable Lahore High Court accepted the Writ Petition, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and directed it to hear the case afresh and then come to a conclusion after according due opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
7. Before the Tribunal, the appellants still re-iterate that:-
(i) No redemption fine could be imposed by the quasi- judicial authorities as they themselves had made correct declaration of the goods on the Bill of Entry the moment they came to know of certain discrepancies.
(ii) As the examiner had specifically stated in his report that the goods were of assorted type, it was not proper to term them as of prime quality because the same clearly fell in the category of job-lot.
(iii) As per the past practice at the Lahore Dry Port, they are entitled to a tare of one Kg for every roll.
8. The learned Departmental Representative, however, maintains that as the appellants had themselves chosen to play foul with the national exchequer, they do not deserve any leniency, whatsoever, in the matter. As to the fax message stating that the goods sent were, in fact, 72 M.T of flexible plastic sheets of stock-lot quality and not 30 M.T of plastic scrap, his stand is that it is nothing but a cover-up. Had their hands been clean, they would have supplied this information much earlier and would also have applied for amendment in the L/C and the manifest. As they did not do so, it would obviously mean that they tried to play smart with Customs at the given point of time. As to the nature of goods and the plea for tare of one Kg, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the goods definitely are of prime quality and that the Customs has already been quite fair and liberal in allowing the tare of 1/2 Kg per roll.
9. We have examined the case-record thoroughly, heard both sides in detail, weighed their points of view realistically and then come to the conclusion that the Customs although have been quite fair and considerate in this case and not otherwise as wrongly alleged by the appellants. As the Customs have placed on record tangible and concrete evidence to establish the mala fides of the appellants, we find hardly any justification to set-aside the orders already passed in the matter. As done previously, we, however, shall like once again to give them relief in fine reducing it from 30% to 10% (ten per cent) of the assessable value. The rest of the orders shall remain intact.
10. In view of the above, the orders appealed against are modified to the extent of reduction of fine only from 30% to 10% (ten per cent only).