C. A. No.2351/LB of 2001, decided on 8th February, 2002. Versus C. A. No.2351/LB of 2001, decided on 8th February, 2002.

MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM (JUDICIAL MEMBER).-- -This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.1349 of 2001, dated 28-7-2001 (dispatched on 3-8-2001) passed by the learned Collector (Adjudication), Multan whereby a Hino Oil Tanker (10 wheeler) bearing Registration No. .C-9728 Peshawar was confiscated by the learned Adjudication Officer on the ground of its being non-duty paid.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the appeal, referred to the report by the Hinopak Motors Limited, dated 13-7-2001 and submitted that in view of the clear findings of Hinopak Motors Limited that, the seized vehicle was locally assembled by them, there was obviously no justification for the learned Adjudicating Officer to have confiscated the same. He has requested for release of the vehicle in view of this report and the letter, dated 6-10-2001 by the Central Board of Revenue wherein it has been observed that after certification by the local assemblers, the seized vehiclers should be released without giving further hardship to the claimant.

3. Report by the Hinopak Motors Limited. dated 13-7-2001 reads as under:--

"Examination of Hino vehicle bearing Reg. .No. C-9728:

Reference is invited to your letter No. Int/SI/Cus/Seiz/16/2001/210, dated July 11, 2001 on the above subject.

This is to certify that we deputed our Engineer to carry out physical examination of Hino vehicle. Based on his report we hereby certify that the vehicle bearing following details is locally assembled by Hinopak Motors Limited:

Models FF173KA truck chassis with driver's cabin

Reg. No. C-9728

Chassis No 18233

Engine No. 196113

As per our record one unit Hino Model FF173KA bearing Chassis No. 18233 and Engine No. 196113 was sold to, Messrs Sahiwal Motors vide Invoice No.2307, dated 28-5 1989."

4. Letter, dated 6-10-2001 by the Central Board of Revenue reads as under:

"Subject: VERIFICATION OF VEHICLES.

Messrs Hinopak Motors, Ltd. have approached the Board with the request that where they give a letter or certificate of genuineness of documents then they should be considered 4s authentic and the seized vehicles-be released without giving further hardship to the owners. This request was examined in consultation with the field formations and the Board is pleased to order that for verification of documents of locally manufactured vehicles certification by the local manufacturers may be accepted. However, if there is any physical tampering it should be got confirmed through reliable Forensic Laboratory before finalizing the matter."

5. The report, dated 13-7-2001, a copy of which has been added with the appeal file at page 31 as Annexure-D was addressed to the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, Customs and Excises, Sadiqabad and .the prosecution agency in order to be honest and fair in their duty should have placed the same before the learned Adjudication Officer at the time of hearing of the matter on 28-7-2001 but to our surprise we find that Agha Naeem Ullah, Intelligence Officer who appeared for the prosecution submitted photocopy of laboratory report showing the Chassis Number to, be without Chassis Code and the formation of the digits to be abnormal but the said Intelligence Officer did not produce the final report of the Hinopak Motors which established the fact that the seized vehicle bearing Registration No.C-9728 was a locally assembled unit by them. There is yet another letter, dated 16-7-2001 available at page 33 as Annexure-E of the appeal file from Hinopak Motors Limited which says that one unit Hino FF.173KA truck chassis with driver cabin bearing Engine No.196113 and Chassis No. 18233 was sold through their dealer Messrs Sahiwal Motors, D. I. Khan vide Invoice No., 2307, dated 28-5-1989. The above reports leave no doubt in the matter that the seized vehicle was locally assembled by Hinopak Motors Limited. The particulars of the seized vehicle tally with the particulars of the locally assembled vehicle as mentioned in the report of Hinopak Motors Ltd., dated 13-7-2001. The seized vehicle being a locally assembled vehicle by Hinopak Motors Ltd., the question of its being of foreign origin did not arise and for the said reason the same could not have been confiscated on the ground of its having been smuggled in the country. The imposition of penalty or Rs.1,00,000 was also un-called for. The result is that 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.

C.M.A./1012/Tax (Trib.) Appeal accepted.