C. A. No. 1664/LB of 2001, decided on 6th February, 2002. Versus C. A. No. 1664/LB of 2001, decided on 6th February, 2002.

MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM (JUDICIAL MEMBER).--- This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 880 of 2001, dated 22-5-2001 (dispatched on 31-5-2001) whereby the learned Collector (Adjudication), Multan confiscated Hino Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. LS-7208 on the ground of its being non-duty paid.

2. During the course of arguments,, learned counsel for the appellant relied heavily on the report, dated 19-5-2001 by Mr. S.M. Naqvi, Manager, Sales and Production Support, Hinopak Motors Limited. The report is reproduced as under:--

"SUBJECT: INSPECTION OF HINO OIL TANKER LS-7208.

Mr. Dawood Moosa owner of the subject vehicle submitted an application, dated 10-5-2001 for inspection of Hino Oil Tanker No.LS-7208. In this connection, I contacted Manager Sales, Planning and Coordination, Hinopak Motors Ltd., Karachi. The following information has been received from the said office:--

(1) Republic Motors Ltd. (former name of Hinopak) imported one unit Model Hino FF 173KA Truck bearing Engine No.168237 and Chassis No. 14402 in CKD condition which was shipped for Pakistan on 13-7-1985.

(2) I also inspected and checked the said vehicle on 18-5-2001 at Customs House, Multan. My observations are as under:--

(a) The Chassis Number is punched on proper place and is in original form but due to human error the Model Code has not been punched. It is confirmed that there are no marks of any grinding or deep filling.

(b) The said unit has been assembled locally and vehicle's technical secrets tally with the local assembled units, it is my confirmed view that this vehicle is not foreign assembled. Any technical expert can verify its local assemblage."

3. We asked the learned D.R. as to whether department had any doubt about the genuineness of the above referred letter, dated 19-5-2001. The learned D.R. stated that the Department did not challenge its genuineness.

4. The learned D.R. had not been able to explain why the above said report, dated 19-5-2001 addressed to the learned Collector Customs (Adjudication), was not considered at the time of adjudication of the case in which the hearing was conducted on 22-5-2001. We are sure that hats the learned Adjudicating Officer taken into consideration the above said report, then he would have realized that the seized vehicle was locally assembled; its Model Code was not punched due to human error, the chassis number was punched on proper place and was in original form; its technical secrets, tallied with the local assembled units; and that the seized vehicle was not foreign assembled. We have also noticed that, the Central Board of Revenue has also issued letter, dated 6-10-2001 in. respect of verification of vehicles by Messrs Hinopak Motors Limited and has provided a guideline for release of vehicles, the documents-of which are verified by the said concern and has observed that such verification by the local manufacturer may be accepted and this certification should be considered as authentic and the seized vehicle be released without giving further hardship to the owner.

5. After haying carefully examined the above-said report, we are convinced that the seized vehicle was not of foreign origin but was locally assembled and thus it could not be confiscated.

6. As a result of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside; the appeal is accepted and the confiscated vehicle is directed to be released to its lawful owner without any conditions.

7. The application; dated 24-11-2001 moved by the appellant is dismissed as withdrawn as requested by the learned counsel.

C.M.A./1011/Tax (Trib.) Appeal Accepted.