M/S. Zarghoon Zarai Corporation vs Collector Of Customs And Another
This matter arises from a petition filed against the Sindh High Court order dismissing the petitioner's Special Customs Appeal, which had challenged the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal's decision upholding an Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector Customs regarding seized goods. The core legal question was whether the determination that the seized goods were of foreign origin rather than locally made constituted a question of law appealable under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Tribunal and the Additional Collector regarding the origin of the goods were conclusive and did not raise any question of law for determination. The key principle laid down is that the High Court rightly declined to exercise its appellate jurisdiction under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, as only questions of law can be raised in such appeals and findings of fact cannot be reopened.
- Whether a finding of fact regarding the origin of seized goods constitutes a question of law under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Customs Tribunal and the Additional Collector of Customs?
- Under what circumstances is the High Court justified in declining to exercise its appellate jurisdiction in customs appeals?
- Section 196, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
MR. JUSTICE RANA BHAGWANDAS.-(1). Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court order, dated 15- 3-2005 dismissing Special Customs Appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal upholding Order-in- Original passed by Additional Collector Customs.
2. Operative part of the impugned order reads as under;- "We have heard the learned counsel at length with reference to the relevant facts and the questions proposed in this appeal. The moot point for consideration in the matter is that whether the goods seized from the appellant were not of foreign origin and the appellant was in lawful custody of the same. By majority view, the Tribunal has recorded its findings against the appellant on this point which is a finding of fact deciding the fate of appellant's claim.
In view of above, in our opinion, none of the questions proposed in this appeal is a question of law within the ambit of section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. This appeal has, therefore, no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed along with listed application."
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are firmly of the view that the vital question of fact as to whether the goods were of Iranian origin or local made has been concluded by the Tribunal as well as the Additional Collector of Customs, which does not raise any question of law for determination by the High Court in terms of section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified to decline exercise of its jurisdiction as under the relevant law only a question of law can be raised before it in such appeal. In our considered opinion, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity, material irregularity or error of law or of jurisdiction.
4. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed as being without any merit and substance.