' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Customs Appeals No,251 of 2001, 252 of 2001 and 253 of 2001 as common questions are involved.
2. The goods subject-matter of these appeals were assessed by the Assistant Collector Customs on 21-5-1998 at 60 US $ per ream against the declared value of US $ 15.95. The Assistant Collector made the assessm ent under the assumption that the goods were 'self adhesive paper' and not 'cast coating papers'. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Collector (Appeals), who vided order, dated 29-1-1999 allowed the same and held that the goods were not `adhesive papers',. But 'cast coating papers' and to declare and value referred above was accepted. This order was challenged by the appellant department before the Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were dismissed in terms of the judgment, dated 9-4-2001 in operative part of which the Tribunal held as under:-- "We have heard the learned departmental representative in support of the appeals and the learned counsel for respondent No,2 in each appeal in their opposition at sufficient length. Before considering their respective contentions, we would like to point out that the learned Collector, during the hearing of appeals, had, after seeing the original record of bills of entry and examination reports thereon produced before him by Mr. Riaz Hussain Bhatti, Appraiser, CFS, Lahore, in para. 4 of the impugned order proceeded to observe that as per reports of examining officer on the bills of entry, the goods were found to be 'cast coating papers' and not 'self adhesive papers' and the words 'self adhesive' were subsequently added by some person other than the examining officer as there was lot of difference between the two handwritings. Perhaps, in view of this important observations, our learned processors-in-office during the pendency of these appeals had directed the appellants herein to produce the original record of examination reports referred to above and went on repeating their direction on many dates of hearing but the Customs Authorities (appellants) never obeyed their directions and did not produce the original record for their inspection, nor they have done so for our inspection, on the plea that the same has been mislaid and is not traceable. In our view, this is a deliberate crude act of suppression of original record and a presumption can conveniently be drawn under the law of evidence that had the original record been produced, it would have gone against interest and stance of the appellants adopted by them from the very 'inception right up to present appeals and might have also exposed the interpolators to sever legal action which perhaps they would not be even now be able to ward off as loss or mislaying of official record is no less serious an offence to hush up."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal is not tenable as it did not appreciate that on the bill of entry there was specific entry to the effect that the goods in question were 'self-adhesive papers' and not 'cast coating papers'. He adds that the respondents did not adduce any evidence to prove the contrary. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are concurrent orders passed by Tribunal of competent jurisdiction that no question of law is involved to warrant interference under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969.
4. There is finding of fact by the Collector of Appeals that the words 'self adhesive papers' were subsequently added with different handwriting. On account of afore-referring finding the learned Tribunal during the appeal had directed more than once that the Customs Department should produce the original record which order was not complied with. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal affirmed the order of the Collector of Appeals. No explanation is coming forth even at this stage from the department as to why the original record was not produced before the Tribunal. It is not denied that in the bill of entry filed by the respondent that there was entry that the goods subject-matter of this petition was 'cast coating papers' and that the endorsement of `self adhesive paper' were added subsequently. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no question of law is involved, the concurrent findings of fact do not call for interference as nothing has been placed on record to the contrary. The appeals having no merit are hereby dismissed.