1. The facts in brief giving rise this special customs appeal filed under section 196 of the Customs, Act, 1969, are that in pursuance of an information that huge quantity of betel nuts are being smuggled from Quetta to Karachi through Truck bearing registration No.QAF-8163, a party headed by Deputy Superintendent, Mobile Squad-III, Hyderabad was formed to foil the attempt of smuggling. On 22- 11-1998 at 2315 hours, the raiding party made Nakabandi at National Highway near Matiari. The staff of Mobile Party gave signal to the driver of the said truck for stopping but driver did not respond to stop the vehicle. Accordingly the Customs Mobile party chased and intercepted the said truck at superhighway near toll plaza, Jamshoro at about 0010 hours of 23-11-1998. On search it was found loaded with betel nuts packed in gunny bags, the said truck was detained and taken to Customs House, Hyderabad, for weighment, it was found to be carrying 260 bags, weighing 22.560 Kgs of betel nuts. Two bilties produced by driver showed that the goods were mis declared. One bilty showed the description of goods as ' Khuskh Bar' and the other bilty showed the goods as 'Choker'.
2. Since the goods were smuggled one and the driver of the truck and carrier of the goods namely Syed Muhammad S/o Hussain and Cleaner Muhammad Khan son of Haji Khudai Dad, could not produce any legal import/possession of the said betel nuts. Therefore the recovered foreign origin betel nuts 260 Bags-22,560 Kgs, alongwith truck bearing registration No.QAF-8163, were seized after preparing mushirnama for violation of provisions of S.R.O. 491(1)/85 dated 23-5-1985, section 2(s) read with sections 16, 157, 161(1)(2), (4) and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 section 3(1) Import and Export Control Act, 1950, punishable under section 156(1)(89)(90) of Customs Act, 1969. The notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, was served upon truck driver namely, Syed Muhammad son of Hussain resident of Newabadi, Chaman. The statement of driver was also recorded and he was arrested under Customs Act, 1969.
3. One Rehmatullah son of Abdul Marian, claimed the ownership of seized goods and contended that the seized truck was containing 22,560 Kgs of betel nuts which were loaded from Customs House, Chaman for Karachi. In support of his contention he produced photo-stat copies of the bill of entry of the goods. On scrutiny the said documents were found not relevant to the goods seized as the bill of entry was old and the quantity shown therein also did not tally with the actual quantity of betel nuts seized by the customs staff. Some gunny bags loaded with the betel nuts were found affixed with stickers pasted on the bags with the remarks "Taqdeer Hanifi LT 5 Kandhar Afghanistan via Karachi Transit Kandhar Afghanistan". The goods were found smuggled one and accordingly claimant Haji Agha Gul was found to have committed offence/crime punishable under section 156(1)(89)(90) of Customs Act, 1969 and the rules made thereunder. Show cause notice dated 23- 12-1998 was issued to the claimant of the seized goods/vehicle as to why the same should not be confiscated and why penal action should not be taken under clauses (8) and (89) of sections 156(1) and 157 (2) of the Customs Act, 1969.
4. After hearing the claimant Agha Muhammad, and the representative of the department, the Additional Collector Custom House Site, Hyderabad on 6-1-1999 ordered for confiscation of 'seized 260 bags (22,560 Kgs) of betel nuts and truck No.QAF-8163. However, the owner of the truck was allowed to redeem the truck on payment of redemption fine Rs.100, 000 (Rupees one lac only).
5. Claimant Agha Muhammad .Filed an appeal on 20-12-1999 which was heard by Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax (Appeals-II) Western Zone, Karachi who by his order dated 13-4-1999 after attending of the factual and legal aspects of the matter reached at the conclusion that the charge of smuggling of contraband goods stood established against the truck. The bills of entry produced by the claimant were found to be old and relating to some other goods. It was observed that at the time of seizure the truck driver placed bill of entry No. 1148 dated 11-11-1997 to justify the goods while at the time of hearing of the appeal claimant of the goods furnished another bill of entry bearing No.727 dated 28-7-1998. After scrutiny even at the appellate stage the said bills of entry --were found having no relevancy with the seized consignment. The order of the Additional Collector was maintained with a modification to the extent that the redemption fine was reduced to Rs.75,000 from Rs.100,000. This order was challenged before the Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Karachi Bench by filing Appeal No.1486/99 and the learned Appellate Tribunal by a detailed and exhaustive order dated 12-8-2000 has dismissed the appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, advocate for the appellant and Mr. Fariduddin advocate for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the impugned order is illegal and it was passed in haste. The documents produced by the claimant/appellant clearly show that the betel nuts were not smuggled one hence there was no justification for seizing the goods or confiscating the truck. Learned counsel has further argued that betel nuts were duly covered under the bill of entry and were lawfully imported. The learned counsel has also argued that by producing the bill of entry the claimant/appellant had discharged his burden and the onus to establish that the goods were legally and lawfully imported and that it had become the duty of prosecution to establish that the goods were illegally or unlawfully imported.
7. Mr. Fariduddin advocate at the very out set has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal having been filed against the judgment of Appellate Tribunal is not maintainable as no question of law, is involved therein. He has also argued that after concurrent findings of four competent authorities i.e. Adjudicating officer, Collector (Appeal), Appellate Tribunal and Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, who has convicted the truck driver under Section 156(1)(89) after declaring claimant/appellant Agha Gul and one Rehmatullah as proclaimed offenders in the said crime, hence there is no force in this appeal.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the orders assailed in this appeal, we do not any force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The adjudicating authority and the appellate Court so also the learned Appellate Tribunal after examining the material placed before them have come to a definite conclusion that the seized betel nuts are the smuggled goods and the alleged bills of entry do not relate to the seized goods for a number of reasons recorded in their orders, particularly the dates of the bills of entry, the weight of the goods mentioned in the bilty and the actual weight of the seized goods. Out of the two bilties, one bearing No.945 dated 19-i 1-1998 shows the description of the goods as "260 Bags of Khurshk Bar Import" whereas in builty No.944 it is mentioned as "280 Bags of Choker". Thus it will be seen that the marks and numbers as found on gunny bags containing the betel nuts were much different from the marks and numbers on the goods covered by the bill of entry produced before the appellate authority. We are also of the considered view that the requirements of section 196 of Customs Act, 1969 are lacking in this appeal as no question of law arising out of the orders passed by the various forums impugned in this appeal has arisen. Concurrent finding of facts based on appreciation of law, facts and material produced by the parties are not liable to be assailed in appeal before this Court. Resultantly this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any force.