The Collector Customs, Custom House, Peshawar vs M/S. Paper
The Collector Customs, Peshawar filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court determining the correct statutory provision applicable to an irregularity committed by the respondent in respect of imported wood pulp. The respondent had stored goods in a private bonded warehouse, and a physical check revealed a shortage due to the consumption of goods without intimation to customs authorities. The core legal question was whether Section 156(1) clause 62 or Section 156(1) clause 90 of the Customs Act was attracted to the unauthorized removal and consumption of goods from a warehouse. The Supreme Court held that clause 62, which deals with illegally taking goods out of a warehouse without payment of duty, applies to the circumstances of the case rather than clause 90. The Court affirmed the High Court's view, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, establishing that unauthorized removal of warehoused goods falls squarely under Section 156(1) clause 62 of the Customs Act.
- Which clause of Section 156(1) of the Customs Act applies when goods are illegally taken out of a warehouse without payment of duty?
- Does the unauthorized consumption of goods from a private bonded warehouse without intimation to customs authorities attract Section 156(1) clause 62 or clause 90 of the Customs Act?
- Section 156(1) clause 62, Customs Act
- Section 156(1) clause 90, Customs Act
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J. --The Collector Customs, Peshawar seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 12.12.2001 rendered by a learned Division Bench of Peshawar High Court whereby, it was held that, to the irregularity committed by M/s. Paper International (Pvt.) Ltd., the correct section of Customs Act applicable was Section 156(1) clause 62 and not Section 156(1) clause 90, as claimed by the Customs Department.
2. The respondent imported two consignments of wood pulp on 20.5.1998 and 25.5.1998 from Canada and Indonesia. The consignment of. 3000 metric tons of Indonesian origin was cleared at Karachi while Canadian consignment of 497.361 metric tons was unloaded in the factory in private bonded warehouse; both simultaneously. When the department physically checked the consignment on 5.10,1998, a shortage of 357.361 metric tons was discovered, to have been consumed without intimation to the Customs authorities.
3. The Adjudication Officer vide Order-in-Original dated 4.11.1998 imposed a penalty of rupees three million plus duties which, by the Customs Appellate Tribunal was reduced to rupees one million.
The order of the Tribunal was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court through impugned judgment, holding that the respondents were liable to a penalty not exceeding rupees twenty-five thousand as provided by Section 156(1) clause 62 of the Customs Act.
4. Having comprehended the actual commission or omission by the respondent company, we are left to determine as to what section of-law is attracted, in the circumstances. Clauses 62 and 90 of Section 156(1) of the Act are reproduced fdr facility of ready reference:-- Offences. Penalties. Section of this Act to which offence has reference.
62. If any person illegally takes any goods out of any warehouse without payment of duty, or aids, assists or is otherwise concerned therein.
Such person shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees and upon conviction by a' Special Judge, he shall further be liable to imprisonment for a term not v .
Exceeding five years, or to fine, or to both.
90. If any person, without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall be on such person, acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping or concealing or in any manner dealing with any goods, not being goods referred to in clause 89, which have been unlawfully removed from a warehouse or which are chargeable with a duty which has not been , paid, or with respect to the importation or exportation of which there is a reasonable suspicion that any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force under or by virtue of this Act has been contravened, or if any person is in relation to any such goods, in any way without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall be on such person, concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion or any duty chargeable thereon, or of any such prohibition or restriction as foresaid or of any provision of this Act applicable to those goods."
Such goods shall be liable to confiscation; and any person concerned shall also be liable to penalty not exceeding ten times the value of the goods-
5. A plain reading of the two clauses juxtaposed, would indicate without difficulty of comprehension or preimpair: I that to the circumstances of the present case, it is clause 62 of the section that applies and not clause 90. Lt clearly provides that the penalty shall not exceed rupees twenty-five thousand and the person concerned can also be tried by the Special Judge Customs. If found guilty he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or fine, or to both.
6. Ln the circumstances, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that it arrived at. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.