JUDGMENT NASIM SIKANDAR, J.-- Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of Custom Appeals Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of 2003.
2. In these six departmental appeals the revenue claims that following questions of law arise out of the consolidated impugned order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Bench dated 6.11.2002:-
(1) Whether the learned Tribunal has fallen into an error of law by holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. SRO 374(l)/02, dated 15.6.2002, issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969?
(2) Whether the learned Tribunal has fallen into an error of law by not appreciating the fact that the goods of the respondent having been classified as "Job Lot" were banned for importation under the Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2001-2002 and those were rightly ordered to be confiscated in terms of Notification No. S.R.O. (1)/98, dated 17.12.1998?
(3) Whether the learned Tribunal has fallen into an error of law to direct the Custom Authorities to release the goods of the respondent in terms of Notification No. S.R.O. 374(l)/02, dated 15.6.2002 by giving it retrospective effect?
(4) Whether the learned Tribunal has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the aforesaid SROs?
(5) Whether the impugned order is tenable in the eye of law?
3. The respondent imported different goods and filed bills of entries for their clearance. During the examination of the consignment in question the Custom authorities concluded that goods were of "Job Lot" quality the importation of which was banned vide negative list of the Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2002. Therefore, the importer/respondents were found to have contravened the provisions of Section 3(1)(3) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950 read with Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969.
4. On adjudication proceedings the authority ordered outright confiscation of the goods in question under clauses 9 and 14 of sub-section (1) of Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with SRO No. 1374(l)/98, dated 17.12.1998. The adjudicating authority also refused to allow concession of SRO No. 374(l)/2002, dated 15.6.2002 which allowed release of the said goods on payment of i.e of 15% of the customs value in lieu of confiscation. According to adjudication authority since the bills of entry in all these cases had been filed before the enforcement of the said notification dated 15.6.2002, the importers/respondents were not entitled to its benefit.
5. On appeal by the importers a Division Bench of the learned Tribunal accepted the contention put forth by the importers that the date of filing of bills of entry was not relevant as far the allowing of concession in the said SRO was concerned. The other submission made by the revenue that jot lot quality of goods being banned for importation in terms of Negative List of the Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2000 an option to pay i.e in lieu of confiscation could not be allowed even in presence of said SRO was also rejected. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads as under:- "Admittedly, all the cases were adjudicated by the respective Adjudicating Officers after 15.6.2002 when SRO 1374(l)/98, dated 17.12.1998 had been substituted by SRO 374(l)/2002, dated 15.6.2002 and hence the same, being a procedural law in nature, came into force from the date of its notification and was to apply to all the cases which, were in the process of assessment/adjudication. The date of filing of bills of entry as envisaged under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969 for purpose of determining the rate of duty was not relevant for the purpose. As already held by this Tribunal in its judgment dated 12.8.2002 in Appeal Nos. 1563/LB/2002 and 1600/LB/2002 the present cases were fully entitled to be dealt with under new SRO 374(l)/2002, dated 15.6.2002 instead of SRO 1374(0/98.
As far the contentions of the learned S.D.R, that the "Job Lot" quality of goods being banned for importation in terms of Negative List of the Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2000, option to pay i.e in lieu of confiscation could also not be allowed in terms of clause (a) of the new SRO dated 15.6.2002 the same was highly misconceived. Sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of said SRO dated 15.6.2002 allowed release of stock lot/job lot goods on payment of i.e equal to 15% of the customs value in lieu of confiscation. This would mean that the "job lot" goods despite having been banned for importation vide the said import Trade Procedures Order, 2000, the same were to be released o payment of i.e equal to 15% of the customs value in lieu of confiscation. Keeping in view all these facts and the judgment dated 9.10.2002 of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 14897/2002 and earlier judgment dated 12.8.2002 of this Tribunal in Appeal No. 1563/LB/2002 and 1600/LB/2002, we order release of the consignments in question on payment of i.e equal to 15% of the customs- value in lieu of confiscation and in addition to for imposition of penalty on the importer as well as the clearing agent vide order in original No. 62/2002, dated 30.8.2002 (Appeal No. 1952/LB/2002) is set aside."
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, It is now well-settled that a concessory SRO, notification, regulation or-executive order can be given retrospective effect if it goes to the comfort of the tax-payer, In the case in hand the impugned order in original was recorded on 30.9.2002 when the concessory SRO was already in the field since 15.6.2002. The fact of the matter is that adjudicating authority did not care even to mention the contention of the importers for allowing of the concession much less to say of its serious consideration. The learned Tribunal rightly observed that date of filing of bill of entry as envisaged under Section 30 of Customs Act, 1969 for the purpose of determining the rate of duty was not relevant as far availing the concession contemplated in the said SRO was concerned. The SRO having come into field and being beneficial to the tax-payer it should have been invoked to allow relief to the importers. Learned Tribunal is also correct in rejecting the alternate plea of the revenue that "job lot" quality of goods being banned for importation in terms of Negative List, option to pay i.e in lieu of confiscation was not allowable. Even if there was a prohibition in the Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2000, the benefit of subsequent SRO dated 15.6.2002 could not be refused to the importers. In view of these settled propositions of law we are of the view that none of the questions as framed by the Revenue need to be considered by this Court under Section 186 of the Customs Act, 1969.
7. Lastly we regret the filing of these appeals by the department which betrays its peculiar mind set.
8. Dismissed.