' Present writ petition arises out of the order, dated 30-10-2000 passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the sole ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working and residing in Jadda Saudi Arabia since many :iears and he came back to Pakistan through Flight No,SV-730 which landed at Lahore Airport on 26-4-2000: The petitioner brought 28 Kgs. Iron Pins in his baggage. It was seized by the Customs Authorities at Lahore Airport on the ground that these goods being in commercial, quantity were not importable. These goods were outrightly confiscated vide order, dated 17-6- 2000. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter an appeal before the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench, Lahore was filed. The appeal of the petitioner was not entertained and dismissed by the Tribunal on the sole ground that in view of the proviso to section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969 the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that section 181 of the Customs Act vests a discretion in the Customs Officer either to confiscate the goods or to release the same on the payment of redemption fine. But the discretion has been done away with by the C.B.R. By issuing letters dated 16-2-1998 and 24-2-1998. It is argued by the learned counsel that the C.B.R. Is the highest authority in the hierarchy of the Customs Department yet it lacks jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere in judicial or quasi-judicial exercise of jttc indiction by the subordinate officers. Kelian.Ce was placed in case C.B.R. And another v. Sheikh Spinning Mills Limited, Lahore and others 1999 SCM R 1442. A judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in Customs Appeal No,160 of 1998 was also relied.
4. Earlier in such-like cases the Tribunal has taken a view that the interest of justice would be served if the goods are released on payment of custom duty and other taxes besides redemption fine equal to 30 to 75% of the value of goods. Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 envisages that whenever an order for the confiscation of ' goods is passed under this Act, the officer passing the order may give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the goods such fine as the officer thinks fit. Any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods imposed under this section shall be in addition to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods and of any penalty that might have been imposed in addition to the confiscation goods.
5. The plea of the petitioner appears to be attractive on the face of it but in the instant case the confiscation was ordered under sections 156(1), 9 and 70 of the Customs Act, 1969. However, it appears that the confiscation was ordered by the Adjudicating Officer in view of order of the C.B.R.
Dated 16-2-1998. This shows that the order was passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. There is yet another aspect of the case which is that after the confiscation made by the Custom Authorities under various provisions of Customs Act, 1969, the confiscated consignment is subsequently, disposed of through open auction. Thus, the goods/articles imported even unlawfully but confiscated ultimately flows in the local market. It would operate very harsh against the petitioner. As the order passed by the Adiudicating Officer suffers with infirmity that it was not passed by an independent application of mind and Superintendent Customs Airport (T), Lahore passing the order was swa yed by the instructions issued by the C.B.R. Vide Letter No,5(4)L&P/98, dated 16-2-1998, therefore, the said decision is not sustainable in law. Similarly, the order passed by the appellate forums did not consider this aspect of the case, therefore, the same cannot be upheld. A Division Bench of this Court has already struck down the order dated 16-2- 1998 issued by the C.B.R. And the impugned order has been passed contrary to the judgment of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 30-10-2000 and 17-6-2000 passed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and keeping in view the interest of justice, the assignment imported by the petitioner is directed to be released on payment of 75 per cent. Of redemption fine in addition to any duty and charges payable in respect of such imported goods.