The appellant imported a consignment of Rubberized Printing Blanket from U.K. has sought to be cleared it at Lahore Custom Dry Port vide Bill of Entry No,2487 dated 30-11-2001. The Revenue however, confiscated the consignment on account of its being "job-lot quality" and therefore, banned under the law. The appellant requested summary adjudication which was accordingly done on 8-1-2002.
2. Before the Tribunal on 28-1-2002 the appellant raised certain objections as to examination report. On this, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. However, nothing changed for the better as far the appellant is concerned. It was again confirmed that the consignment comprised of goods which were covered by the definition of "job-lot" as given in Customs General Order No,6 of 1984. In the second round on 27-2-2000 the learned Tribunal agreed with the findings recorded by the Adjudication Authority on the ground that the consignment in question was examined 100% and the result confirmed the view of the Revenue as to its nature.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant claims that following questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal:- "(i) Whether the learned Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in the given circumstances has appreciated the definition of 'job-Lot' as defined in Customs General Order No,6 of 1984, dated 3rd March, 1984 in its true perspective?
(ii)Whether the goods or consignment which are of prime quality but packed not in a standard manner to save the weight and area can fall within the admit of job-lot?
(iii)Whether the consignment of Rubberized Printing Blanket as imported by the appellant from the U.K. and sought to be cleared from the Lahore Dry Port Customs vide Bill of Entry No,4827 dated 30-11-2001 is a banned item under the Import Policy Order 2001-2002?
(iv)Whether the learned Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Lahore and the learned Adjudicating Officer could ignore the packing list as produced by the appellant in support of his claim without any rhyme and reason?
(v) Whether the appellant in the presence of Bill of Entry No,395 dated 23-4-2001 pertaining to consignment of Rubberized Printing Blankets released by Karachi Customs 'House can be treated differently and discriminately without any just and reasonable explanation or reasons?
(vi)Whether Revenue is justified to treat the importers discriminately with respect to a consignment of same nature?
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are not persuaded to entertain the appeal, as no question of law can possibly be said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal.
The issue if a consignment imported is covered by the definition of job-lot can hardly be a subject- matter of appeal to this Court under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. At the time of import, the appellant requested for summary jurisdiction but subsequently challenged the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. At this, the learned Tribunal in the first round, remanded the matter and when same report was made after complete re-examination of the consignment the appellant was refused interference with the impugned order.
5. For the reasons given by the Tribunal while agreeing with the Adjudicating Authority we are of the view that the issue pre-dominantly being of fact cannot be entertained under the said provisions of the Customs Act, 1969.
6. Dismissed in limine.