1. ' SYED ALI ASLAM JAFRI, J.---The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal filed under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 are as under:--- ' The staff of the Preventive Collectorate seized one Mitsubishi Pajero Jeep bearing Registration No,BB-7270 on 27-10-1998. A show-cause notice, dated 14-12-1998 was issued to the respondents for violation of statutory requirements essential for importing of vehicle into Pakistan in terms of section 3(i) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 as the said jeep was non-duty paid and it was found to be an offence under section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 punishable under Clauses
(9) (77) and (90) of section 156 (i) of the Act.
2. ' The case was heard by Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) in his capacity as adjudicating authority and by his order, dated 13-2-1999 he passed an order confiscating above referred vehicle (Pajero Jeep) out righly. An appeal was filed by the respondent under section 193 of the Customs Act, 1969 before the Collector (Appeals) South Zone, Karachi who by his order dated 10-6-1999 upheld the impugned order.
3. ' The respondents thereafter filed an appeal before the Custom, Excise and Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal Karachi Bench and the learned Tribunal by its order, dated 6-7-1999 partly allowed the appeal by modifying the orders of the two fora below and further ordered for release of the vehicle/jeep on payment of duties and taxes at depreciated value.
4. ' The Collector of Custom (Preventive) has filed this appeal.
5. ' We have heard Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Syed Mohsin Imam, on behalf of respondent No,1. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the vehicle/jeep in question was found plying in country without payment of duty and other taxes hence the adjudicating authority as well as the Collector of Customs (Appeals) were justified in ordering for the outright confiscating of the' said vehicle and there was nothing wrong or illegal in the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer and Collector (Appeals).
6. ' The learned counsel for respondent No,1 has argued that the said vehicle was purchased by his client as a bona fide purchaser after checking the documents with the Excise Taxation Department and the said vehicle was found to have been duly registered. He has further argued that the said vehicle was already registered at three different places before its purchase by the appellant who is a lady belonging to a very respectable family and moreover she is an American National. Being a foreigner she could not indulge in such activity and that despite having paid full price to the seller she was ready to make payment of the duties and taxes as per rules. He has further argued that there were no such sign or marks which could show that chasis or engine number had been tampered with or mutilated so as to give rise to a genuine suspicious that the vehicle in question was imported illegally.
7. 'We have examined the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the show-cause notice issued to the respondents as well as the orders passed by the Adjudicating Officer, Collector (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal. Keeping in view the scope of section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 we are of the view that there is no such point of law which requires clarification/declaration from this Court. The learned Tribunal does not appear to have acted illegally or arbitrarily. No fault was found on the part of the respondent purchaser. Before its purchase by the respondent No,1, the vehicle in question was sold three times and even the record of the Excise and Taxation Department did not give rise to any valid and genuine suspicious that the said Pajero-Jeep was an unduty paid vehicle. Order for release of the said vehicle has been made subject to the payment of the custom duty and other taxes. Under the circumstances the discretion exercised by the learned Appellate Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant as reported in the case of Messrs Yousuf re-Rolling Mills v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and another 1986 CLC 77 does not stand attracted to the facts of this case. The appeal is devoid of any force hence dismissed.
8. 'By a short order, dated 16-3-2001 we had dismissed this appeal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the above are the reasons for the same.