MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ PECHUHO Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD Manzoor Ali Khan

1. SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ ‑All the three appeals are of identical nature. They have been heard together and are disposed of by one judgment.

2. All the three appellants M/s. Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu, Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai are employed in the Customs, Appraisement, Karachi. In the year 1983, the appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu was holding the post of Appraiser, while the other two appellants Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai were Examining Officers. During the course of their working together at Karachi Sea Port, six shipping bills bearing Nos. 24225, 24226, 23982, 23983, 27420 and 27421 dated 29‑10 1983, 27‑10‑1983 and 14‑11‑1983 submitted by the Clearing Agents M/s. Jawed and Company, Karachi, on behalf of the exporters M/s. Y. Sons Traders and M/s. S.J. Silk Mills, Karachi were referred to them for certification after checking. The goods were declared as "100% Cotton Terry Towels Dyed, size 37 x 45" in four bills and 42 x 84" in two bills. The consignments were destined for Singpore. The examination of the goods was made by the appellants Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and their examination reports were countersigned by the appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu and the goods were cleared for shipment by the order of the appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu. The order of actual shipment of the goods was made by the Principal Appraiser Mr. Rashid‑uz‑Zaman and their loading was. allowed by the Divisional Officers. During the course of shipment, the goods were intercepted by the Intelligence personnel and it was observed that they were not of the declared description. After completion of necessary inquiries, departmental proceedings against all the three appellants were initiated under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the E & D Rules) They were charge‑sheeted separately by charge‑sheets dated 15‑6‑1985. The statement of allegations served on them along-with the charge‑sheets were the same as reproduced below:‑

"STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

(1) It was reported that six shipping bills bearing Nos. 24225, 24226, 23982, 23983, 27420 and 27421 dated 29‑10‑1983, 27‑10‑1983 and 14‑11‑1983 respectively were filed by the C/Agent M/s. Javed & Co. Karachi for the shipment of goods of the exporters M/s. Y. Son; Traders and M/s. S.J. Silk Mills. The goods were declared to be 100% Cotton Terry Towels dyed, size 37 x 45", packed in 120 bales having a total gross weight of 116, 756 Kgs. The consignment was destined to Singapore.

(2) E.Cs. M/s. S.U. Sial and Aurangzeb were marked with these shipping bills for conducting the examination of the goods. The good, covered under the foresaid shipping bills were examined by them on 17‑11‑1983 and nothing abnormal or irregular was found by them as is evident from their examination report on the said shipping bills Shipment of the said goods was allowed by the A.O. Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu who was posted at Export Examination, West Wharf and accordingly shipment was allowed by the PA. Mr. Rashid‑uz. Zaman on his recommendation on the reverse of the shipping bills. This was done on 17‑11‑1983. The Divisional Officer concerned also allowed loading on 17‑11‑1983.

(3) A credible information was received that the aforesaid goods were not such as declared in the shipping documents and examination reports, As such the same were subjected to re‑examination. The re examination of the goods revealed that there were some gross irregularities and misdeclaration of description, value, quantity, quality and weight.

(4) It also appeared that with a view to hide their offence or guilt, the examining officers had tempered with their reports in the triplicate and quadruplicate copies of the shipping bills which is quite visible from the face of it.

(5) The goods in question were declared to be dyed cotton terry towels but on re‑examination it were found to be bleached cotton bar mops. The size was found to be of 15 x 18" instead of 37 x 45" as declared. The quantity was found to be 50% less than the declared quantity. Such was the case with the value and the weight consequently.

(6) The gross mis-declaration of the description of goods, value quantity, quality, and weight if not detected would have entailed the Government to a loss of Rs.24,53,835 approx. in the shape of rebate. The party had mala fide intention of getting rebate of Rs.24,91,102 instead of actual amount of Rs.37,367.20.

(7) From the above it is found that the examining officers namely E.O. Mr. S.U. Sial and E.O. Mr. Aurangzeb Khan and the A.O. Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu were responsible for the fraud committed by the above named exporters and were indulged in fraudulent acts of passing/clearing the aforesaid consignment with misdeclaration of description value, quantity, quality and weight with the motive of claiming more rebate than due.

2. Therefore, they are charge‑sheeted accordingly.

3. (Sd.)

4. Masood Aziz.

5. Deputy Collector of Customs

6. (Preventive)

7. Authorised Officer."

3. The appellants submitted reply to the charge‑sheets separately. The appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu stated that he cleared the goods for shipment on the examination reports made by the appellants Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and took the plea that the goods were not of the description a declared in the bills and such endorsements were made on the bills and the goods were cleared for shipment after the statement by the exporters that the goods may be cleared for shipment as per examination reports. The appellants Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai stated that they had made proper certification of the goods as they actually were and they were cleared for shipment by the Appraiser at the request of the exporters that they may be permitted to be exported as certified by the Examining Officers. '

4. The charges against the appellants were inquired into by an Inquiry Officer Syed Jalal Shah, Assistant Collector of Customs (Export Wing, Exmination). He, in his report dated 16‑10‑1985, held the appellants Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai guilty of dishonest certification of the goods; and the appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu for negligence in clearing the goods for export carelessly relying upon the reports of the Examiners. The appellants were served with separate final show‑cause notices dated 8‑1‑1986. They filed their written reply harping on the same defence pleas that certification of the goods was made as the goods were and they were cleared for shipment as they were. The Authorised Officer did not accept their plea and forwarded the papers to the Deputy Collector of Customs Appraisement‑I, for awarding major penalty on the appellants. Mr. Shuja Shah, the Deputy Collector of Customs, Appraisement‑I, then passed separate orders on 6‑10‑1986. He imposed on the appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu the punishment of his reduction to the post of Examiner, and punishment of removal from service on the appellants Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai. The appellants preferred departmental appeals but did not succeed. Thereafter, the appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu preferred Appeal No.131(K)/87 on 15‑10‑1987, whereas the appellant Saifullah Sial filed Appeal No.141(K)/87 on 16‑11‑1987 and the appellant Aurangzeb Khan Yousuf7ai filed Appeal No. 2(K)/88 on 3‑1‑1988.

5. The exporters M/s. SJ. Silk Mills and M/s. Y. Sons Traders tendered the goods to the West Wharf Karachi Sea Port through their Clearing Agents M/s. Jawed & Company, Karachi. The goods tendered were covered by six shipping bills. The essential particulars of each bill are given below:

8. M/S S.J. SILK MILLS. KARACHI

9. 1.

10. Export No. 23982, dated 27‑10‑1983.

11. No. and description of packages

12. 20 Bales only.

13. Marks and Nos.

14. Belal Singapore100%

15. Cotton Made in Pakistan

16. Bale No.21‑ 40.

17. Quantity

18. 44,000 pcs

19. Description of goods and P.C.T. No.

20. 100%

21. Cotton Terry

22. Towels Dyed: Size 42 x 84

23. Packing: 2,200 Pcs per bale.

24. 2.

25. Export value

26. Rs.20,33,696

27. 3.

28. Export No. 23983 dated 27‑10‑1983.

29. (other particulars same as above)

30. Export No. 27420, dated 14‑11‑1983.

31. (Other particulars same as above, except size 37 x 45")

32. 4.

33. Export No. 27421, dated 14‑11‑1983

34. (Same as in (3) above).

35. M/S Y. SONS TRADES. KARACHI:

36. 1.

37. Export No. 24225, dated 29‑10‑1983

38. (1)

39. No. & description of packages

40. 20 bales only.

41. Marks and Nos.

42. Y. Sons Singapore 100%

43. Cotton Made in Pakistan

44. Bale Nos. 21 to 40.

45. Quantity

46. 40,000 pcs

47. Description of goods and P.C.T. No.

48. 100%

49. Towels Dyed, size 37x45;

50. Packing 2,000 pcs per bale,

51. Export Value

52. Rs.18,75,123

53. 2.

54. Export No. 24226, dated 29‑11‑1983.

55. (Other particulars same as in (2) above)

6. The goods tendered by M/s. S.J. Silk Mills, Karachi under Shipping Bills Nos. 23982, 23983, 27420 were examined by the appellant Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and those under Shipping Bill No. 27421 by Saifullah Sial. The goods tendered by M/s. Y. Sons Trades under Shipping Bills Nos. 24225 and 24226 were examined by the appellant Saifullah Sial. Admittedly, the goods tendered at the Sea Port by both the exporters were not of the description given in the shipping documents. There was vast difference between the declared quantity, quality and other particulars of the goods and the quantity and the quality etc. of the goods actually found in the consignments. The examination endorsements on the bills by the appellants Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and Saifullah Sial were suspected. The allegations of the department are that the reports in their original form were in confirmation of the description etc. of the goods as mentioned in the bills, but they were interpolated later to indicate the actual nature and description of the goods after it was detected that the goods tendered at the Port for shipment were not of the description, quality and the quantity etc. declared on the shipping bills. The matter was inquired into by an Inquiry Officer ‑who was an Assistant Collector of Customs. He held that there was tempering in the entries which clearly indicated that the Examining Officers had initially certified the goods to be as declared in the shipping bills but they made certain changes in their reports so as to indicate that the real description and quantity etc. of the goods were mentioned in the reports. The case of the appellants Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and Saifullah Sial is that the endorsements recorded by them on the shipping bills are in their original form and they were not interpolated later. It appears from bare glance at the endorsements on all the six bills that there is clear interpolation in the reports in the form of additions, interlineations and scoring etc. in respect of size and quantity of the goods as to indicate that the examination reports reflected actual particulars of the goods found in the consignments on examination by the Assistant Collector, which had revealed that the goods were actually "Bleached Cotton Mobs of 15x 18" size instead of Cotton Terry Dyed Towels of 42x84" or 37x45" size and their quantity also was found much less. The learned counsel for the appellants while maintaining that the entries by Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and Saifullah Sial on the respective shipping bills were not interpolated, urged that the exporters had given in writing on the shipping bills that the goods of different quality and in different quantity were wrongly tendered at the Wharf instead of the actual goods and that they may be permitted to be exported as they were and that was done consequent to the examination reports made by them and secondly that the shipping bills had gone out of the reach of the appellants and they could not lay hands on them as to have made interpolations in the entries. Laying hands on the shipping bills which were in movement in different sections of the Customs Department for interpolating the entries and procuring endorsements of the exporters, who had to maintain good relations with the Customs personnel, could not be difficult task for the appellants to save their skin. The interpolations on the shipping bills are so clear that the argument by the learned counsel for the appellants to advance the theory of impossibility loses its impact. The inquiry officer correctly held that the examination reports were interpolated by the appellants Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and Saifullah Sial as to make them in conformity with the examination reports of the Assistant Collector. It has been stated that had the goods been exported on the basis of original reports of the appellants Aurangzeb Khan and Saifullah Sial on the shipping bills, the exporters would have been entitled to claim rebate to the tune of Rs.24,91,102, whereas they would not have been entitled to any rebate on the goods actually tendered for export. The Examining Officers, namely Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and Saifullah Sial were, therefore, directly responsible for the fraudulent certification of the goods sought to be exported, under the aforesaid shipping bills and they were liable to be punished under', the E&D Rules. Their involvements in such fraudulent affair involving huge loss to the Government exchequer did call for exemplary punishment of their i,, dismissal from service but they were leniently dealt with and awarded lesser'' punishment of removal from service.

8. As regards the appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu, he too .was liable to have been awarded a major punishment in view of the fact that he supported the plea of the appellant Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai and Saifullah Sial that the shipping bills did have the examination reports as they existed on them, although the facts were otherwise, as discussed above, that the shipping bills were originally endorsed to show that the goods examined by the Examining Officers were. of the quantity and quality declared on them. Had he not been in league with the Examining Officers, he would have made a straightforward statement that he cleared the goods for shipment as the goods were declared in the shipping bills on the basis of the original examination reports; but he stated that he cleared the goods for shipment as they were as per reports of the Examining Officers. He thus involved himself as being in league with the appellant Saifullah Sial and Aurangzeb Khan Yousufzai in forging the reports on the shipping bills. If the goods were not of the description entered on the shipping bills, appropriate report should have been made by him to the concerned quarters instead of giving access to the exporters to make endorsements on the shipping bills that the goods may be allowed to he shipped as they were. The shipping bills have the printed mark that they were meant for "Free Goods" and in that case the goods of other description could not be permitted to be exported under those bills. However, this appellant Muhammad Siddiq Pechuhu was very leniently dealt with and awarded the punishment of reduction to the post of Examiner. There was yet a subsequent development in his case that by an Office Order No.037/90 Estt(A), dated 30th January, 1990, the appellate authority had decided that the penalty Imposed by the Collectorate of Customs Appraisement. Karachi rather very harsh and the same may be converted into his reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of appraiser, a copy whereof was placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel, who, on the basis thereof, advanced the argument that the appeal had become infructuous. The appellate authority had dismissed the departmental appeal earlier by order dated 20‑8‑1987. Whatever the nature and worth of the order dated 30th January, 1990 may be. the appeal has not become infructuous by virtue of that order as it has to be decided on its merits it had at the time it was filed.

9. For the reasons recorded above, all the three appeals merit dismissal and are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

56. A.A./674/Sr.F Appeals dismissed.