' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.---Having received a source information alleging an attempt to smuggle gold, a raiding party of Pakistan Rangers on 30-11-1991 intercepted a Suzuki Car (bearing No,LOG 9265) near Ranger Post Chamana Shakargarh at 1-30 midnight. Two inmates of the car managed to escape whereas Muhammad Niamat son of Asghar Ali and Muhammad Ashraf son of Wassan Din were apprehended at the spot. In all 4680 tolas of gold of foreign, origin was recovered from the car and a case vide F.I.R. No:130 of 1991, dated 1-12-1991. Police Station Lessar Kalan was registered against them.
2. Initially the Collector of Customs vide 'order, dated 17-11-1992 held that an attempt was made to smuggle out the gold subject-matter of this appeal, the same was confiscated under section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, the Suzuki car was also confiscated but no order was made with regard to penalty. This order was challenged in appeal and the Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue dismissed the same. This order was challenged before the Customs, Excise and Sale Tax Tribunal which too met the same fate.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the three concurrent orders on the grounds that the gold subject-matter of this appeal was not being smuggled out; that it was to be sold to certain persons in Pakistan; that it was not recovered from the place and point as alleged, that it is a case of no evidence against the appellant and that the Pakistan Rangers had no authority to raid, seize the gold and impound the car.
4. Learned counsel for the Customs Department, on the other hand, defended the impugned order by submitting that the gold was impounded within a radius of five kilometers from the Indian Border; that it was being smuggled out that appellant's car was rightly intercepted, that the appellant alongwith another were caught red-handed, the gold was recovered from the car they were boarding and during investigation the appellant failed to produce any evidence to indicate that the gold in question was being transported for any bona fide or lawful purpose.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the issues raised.
6. Before the Collector Customs, the case of the appellant was that the gold in question was lawfully imported in the country under the Gold Import Scheme announced by the Federal Government and that the Gold was required by Muhammad Ashraf appellant for sale within the country. However, no evidence was led in support of this contention. For the first time, some documents were produced before the Member (Judicial) Central Board of Revenue who, having examined the same, held that those documents in no way established appellant's bona fides with regard to the possession of gold. In para. 8 of the judgment dated 29-5-1993 it was observed as under:--- "The photo copies of documents. Form G and UBL duty paid receipt produced, do not show any import by the appellant. The case was detected on 30-11-1991 and adjudicated on 17-11-1992. It is surprising that document relating to import of gold from Dubai on 14-5-1991 by family members of Syed Ghazanfar Ali Hamdani House No,133-C, Block 2, PECHS, Karachi are for import of gold from Dubai on 14-5-1991 which was handed over to Muhammad Ashraf, Lahore the appellant but no mention about this fact was at time of detection of case and during subsequent proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority. It is only on 3-12-1992 that an affidavit was secured which reveals that these documents are an afterthought. The appellants have also failed to substantiate their claim of being a gold broker with any documents. No documentary evidence substantiating transactions of gold involving thousands of tolas has been produced and appellants claim as such has no force. The gold was seized by the Rangers near the Border of India/Pakistan which fully established the fact that the foreign origin gold was being smuggled out to India in violation of section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. The place of recovery where there is no population and the seizure in mid-night prove the fact that the intention was to smuggle the gold out of the country."
7. It has further been established that the car was impounded and the gold was seized at a place which is at a distance of two and a half kilometers from the India Boarder. The gold was admittedly recovered from the said car. No tenable explanation was given by the appellant either during investigation or bef7re the Adjudicating Officer for possession of such a huge quantity of gold. The three Tribunal/forums of competent jurisdiction have concurrently held that the said gold was being smuggled out. No question of law has been raised by the appellant A to warrant interference in the impugned orders. The appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed.