AMJAD PERVAIZ and others vs ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (HQ)
This matter concerns two Customs Appeals filed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the release of confiscated goods subject to payment of a fine and duties. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who claimed to be the owners or agents of the goods, had established a valid legal interest or ownership in the seized items, particularly given that the Bills of Entry were not in their names. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants failed to produce any documentation, such as an agency agreement or proof of purchase, to substantiate their claim of ownership or agency regarding the goods in question. Consequently, the Court found that the appellants were unable to demonstrate that they were bona fide purchasers or authorized agents of the actual importer. The Court held that in the absence of evidence establishing a legal nexus between the appellants and the imported goods, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was not against the weight of the material on record, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of merit.
- Can an appellant claim ownership of confiscated goods if the Bills of Entry are not in their name and no agency agreement is produced?
- Does the failure to provide evidence of a bona fide purchase or agency relationship justify the dismissal of a customs appeal regarding confiscated goods?
- Is a finding of fact by the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the status of imported goods liable to be set aside without evidence of legal error?
- Section 2(s), Customs Act 1969
ORDER
This order shall dispose of Customs Appeal No.15 and Customs Appeal No.16 of 2003 as the issue raised is the similar.
2. Facts in brief are that the goods subject-matter of these Customs Appeals were intercepted by the concerned officials of the Customs Department and in terms of the inquiry/probe made, a show-cause notice was issued and vide order, dated 30-8-2001, the goods were confiscated, .a fine of Rs.11 lac, in lieu of confiscation along with a penalty of Rs.5 lac was also imposed in appeal, however, the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore vide judgment, dated 29-10- 2002 held that the goods were freely importable and the goods were directed to be released subject to. The payment of fine equal to 25 % of the ascertained value in lieu of confiscation and of course in addition to the duties and taxes payable under the law. The fine of Rs.5 lac imposed as penalty on the owner of the goods was however, remitted.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of both the appeals, has submitted that the appellants had imported 80% of the goods themselves and the remaining 20% they had purchased from the open market; that the goods were not smuggled items within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Customs Act; that both the Tribunals below have failed to appreciate that the goods had been imported under valid bills of entries. The Bills of Entries have been produced today by the petitioner and the Deputy Superintendent Customs, present in Court, has examined the same.
Admittedly, these Bills of Entries are not in the name of the
4. Appellant Amjad Pervez. Confronted with this learned counsel for the appellants tried to argue that the appellant is an agent of Khawaja Hafeez Jawad of Faisalabad who imported the goods and in whose name the Bills of Entries are. However, on a Court query he does not deny that no document indicating the creation of any agency between the appellants and the said owner of the goods was placed on record and even in the memo. Of appeals before this Court this point has not been urged. That being so, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the appellants' learned counsel that the appellants are agent of Khawaja Hafeez Jawad. The appellants did not place on record any document to show that they are bona fide purchasers of any goods subject-matter of these appeals either before the Tribunals below or before this Court. In the afore-referred circumstances no question of law is involved in these Customs Appeals, the impugned judgment is neither against the weight of material placed on record nor is violative of any provision of the Customs Act. Customs Appeals Nos. 15 and 16 of 2003, having no merit, are therefore, dismissed. .
Cited by 4 cases
- Messrs T.M. ENTERPRISES through Authorized Attorney vs DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, KARACHI 2010 PTD 1411
- M/S. T.M. Enterprises. vs Director, Intelligence And Investigation, Karachi. PTCL 2011 CL. 18
- M/s.T.M.Enterprises vs Directoer Intellignece & Investigation 2015 SHC 75
- M/S. T.M. Enterprises, Karachi vs The Director Intelligence & Investigation, 2010 P.C.T.L.R. 1122