Appeal No.C.A. 2312/LB of 2001, decided on 11th March, 2002. Versus Appeal No.C.A. 2312/LB of 2001, decided on 11th March, 2002.

MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).--- This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 338 of 2001, dated 31-8-2001 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Lahore.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that Messrs Business Master International, Lahore (the appellants herein) imported a consignment of. 238 rolls of PVC Coated Febrics from Korea and sought clearance thereof Vide Bill of Entry No.00281, dated 8-8-2001 declaring the weight and value of goods as 6081 Kgs and US $. 6,385.05 respectively. The goods were assessed provisionally under section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 at the loaded value of US$ 1.365 per kg but before allowing clearance, 100 % weighment of consignment was conducted which revealed that it contained a quantity of 2031 kgs in excess of the declared quantity. The consignment was accordingly re assessed to duty and taxes and differential amount of value, customs duty and taxes was determined as follows:--

Assessable value of excess goods Rs.1,82,194

Customs duty @ 30% Rs.54,658

Sales Tax @ 15%. Rs.33,528

Income Tax @ 6% Rs.16,342

Attempted to be evaded Rs.1,06,528

3. The appellants were accordingly charged with misdeclaration in terms of the provisions of section 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. The case was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Lahore who, on a request by the appellants adjudicated the case summarily and holding the charge of misdeclaration established against them ordered confiscation of the offending goods under section 156(1) 14 ibid vide the impugned order. An option was however, given to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine equal to 100 % of the duty and taxes attempted to be evaded in addition to the duty and taxes otherwise payable thereon in terms of S.R.O. 1374(I)/98, dated 17-12-1998.

4. In the instant appeal, the appellants have pleaded that they have not indulged in any misdeclaration in that the quantity in length (yardage) was correctly declared in the bill of entry as per invoice. The difference in weight was a mistake on the part of foreign supplier which was indicated by him in the import documents on their request, as the payment was made according to yardage, which was correct, the action of Customs Authorities to enhance the value of consignment was illegal and arbitrary. In support of their contention, the appellants have quoted the correspondence exchange between them and the foreign supplier which is attached with their appeal as Annexures D and E. However, during the course of hearing, when confronted with the facts by the representative of the Department, the appellants representative admitted the difference in quantity detected by the Customs Authorities and expressed his willingness to pay duty and taxes thereon with a request for reduction in the amount of redemption fine.

5. We have gone through the case record and considered the submissions made by the appellants. The excess quantity of 2031 kgs detected by the Customs Authorities as a result of 100% weighment or the consignment and chargeability of customs duty and taxes thereon is admitted by the appellants. As value of goods was on weight basis, false declaration of weight in the bill of entry was obviously made with the intention of evading payment of duty and taxes. Even the shipper's letter, dated 22-8-2001 referred to by the appellants does not support their contention. The charge of misdeclaration in terms of section 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore, stands established. The learned Adjudicating Officer has, as such, rightly ordered confiscation of the offending goods and their release against redemption fine equal to 100% of the duty and taxes attempted to be evaded in terms of S.R.O. 1374(I)/98, dated 17-12-1998 which carries the force of law as held by the Honourable Lahore High Court in Customs Appeal No.4 of 1998.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which has been passed on valid and legal grounds. The appeal is accordingly rejected being without merit.

C.M.A./728/Tax (Trib.) Appeal Rejected Accordingly.