Appeal No.2751/LB of 2000, decided on 14th March, 2002. Versus Appeal No.2751/LB of 2000, decided on 14th March, 2002.
MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).‑‑‑ This appeal has been filed by Messrs Al‑Mubarik Enterprises, 3‑Faiz Building Near Dryport Samberial against Order‑in‑Original No. 18 of 2001, dated 24‑10‑2001 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Adjudication), Gujranwala.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that the appellant imported a consignment declared to be 25600‑Kgs Liner Craft Paper of PCT Heading No.4804.1100 and sought clearance thereof vide Bill of Entry No.1724, dated 12‑3‑2001 filed at Dryport Samberial. Examination of the consignment revealed that the same comprised of Liner Craft Paper of secondary quality, the import of which was banned under the relevant Import Policy Order. It was also found that the appellant did not have valid import registration as well as sales tax registration as required vide the Import Policy Order which is a violation of S.R.O. 489(I)/2000, dated 17‑7‑2001. The appellant was accordingly charged with contravention section 16 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of the Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. After serving the appellant with a show‑cause notice and giving due opportunity of hearing learned Adjudicating Officer held the charges established and ordered outright confiscation of the goods under section 156(1) of 1989 and 14 of the Customs Act.
3. The appellant's case is that it imported standard quality goods and made correct declaration of their description in the bill of entry on which is evident from the fact that the Customs Authorities on the one hand declared the goods of secondary/sub‑standard quality while on the other, enhanced their value from US $ 240 M.T. as declared to US$ 450 per M.T. which is the value of standard quality goods. Since the appellant had made correct declaration of the description as well as PCT Heading of goods as per import documents, it could not be charged with mis declaration in view of the provisions of Customs General Order No. 10 of 1999, dated 22‑4‑1999. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Adjudicating Officer had erred in confiscating the goods merely on a technical violation of the Import Policy Order which was harsh and discriminatory. He, however, admitted during the course of arguments that the goods were from two to three years old stock and therefore, they looked substandard whereas actually the same were of standard quality.
4. Learned D.R. opposed the appeal.
5. We have examined the case in the light of facts on record and the submission$ made by learned counsel for the appellant. The goods are admittedly of sub‑standard/stock‑lot quality, the import of which is banned vide clause I of the negative list (appendix‑A) of the Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2000. Reference to the provisions of Customs General Order No. 10 of 1999, dated 22‑4‑1999 is therefore, not relevant as it pertains to the assessment and valuation of imported goods and not to the provisions of the Import Policy. We therefore, find that the goods being of substandard/stock‑lot quality are liable to confiscation under section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of the imports and Exports (control) Act, 1950. According to S.R.O. 1374(I)/98, dated 17‑4‑1998 the Adjudicating Officers are barred from exercising the discretion to allow release of such goods against redemption fine. We, therefore, find that the impugned order has been passed on legal as well as valid grounds and there is no reason to interfere with it.
6. The appeal is accordingly rejected being without merit.
C.M.A./723/Tax (Trib.) Appeal rejected