COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, PESHAWAR and others vs ZARSHAD and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed an appeal filed by the respondents regarding the confiscation of a vehicle by Customs authorities. The vehicle was confiscated following a Forensic Science Laboratory report indicating that the chassis frame had been replaced and welded. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in an appeal under the Customs Act, possessed the jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual findings or if it was limited to questions of law. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own findings of fact for those of the lower forums. The Court established that if the High Court found the Forensic Science Laboratory report inadmissible due to a lack of supporting evidence, the proper course of action was to remand the case for further evidence rather than deciding the merits itself. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal with directions to record the evidence of the Forensic Science Laboratory representative and allow for cross-examination.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to substitute findings of fact in an appeal under the Customs Act 1969?
- What is the appropriate procedure for a High Court when it determines that a forensic report relied upon by lower forums is inadmissible?
- Is a High Court empowered to decide a case on merits when it identifies a procedural defect in the evidence relied upon by the lower appellate tribunal?
- Section 196, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 2-12-2002 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby appeal instituted by the respondents has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that Vehicle No,J-4086/ Peshawar was confiscated on 20th June, 2000 by the Customs Authorities on suspicion that it has been smuggled into Pakistan, as such to verify the genuineness of its Chassis and Engine number on 23rd June, 2000 it was handed over to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and report. The Forensic Science Laboratory after examining the vehicle prepared report on the even date but signed it on 27th July, 2000 confirming that "a piece of chassis frame bearing the present chassis number is replaced and welded". On receipt of report show-cause notice was issued to the respondents on 10-8-2000 to explain as to why the vehicle may not be confiscated. In response to notice they filed reply on 16-8- 2000. However in adjudication proceedings the vehicle was confiscated by the Additional Collector (Adjudication) Customs vide order, dated 20th September, 2000. Appeal filed by the respondents before the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal; Islamabad was dismissed on 5th January, 2001. Feeling aggrieved from the original order of adjudication as well as appellate order respondents filed second appeal before the High Court, which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Mr. Hamid Farooq Durrani, DAG contended on behalf of the petition-rs that under section 196 of the Customs Act, the scope of appeal before the High Court was limited to the extent of the question of law raised before it. Therefore, High Court had no jurisdiction to enter into factual controversy and decided the case by substituting the finding of fact of lower forums with its own findings. Thus impugned judgment calls for interference by this Court.
4. When confronted the learned counsel for the respondents with legal provisions of law, he stated that as report of Forensic Science Laboratory was not admissible because it was prepared on 23rd June, 2000 and signed on 27th July, 2000, the High Court on examining the same opined that the proceedings against respondents are based on mala fide. As such impugned judgment is maintainable.
5. In our opinion that learned High Court instead of substituting findings of facts recorded by the forums under the Customs Act if was of the opinion that without recording evidence report of Forensic Science Laboratory was not admissible then instead of deciding the case finally it should have remanded it to the Tribunal for recording evidence and then to decide the case. But the learned High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding appeal on facts, thus, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.-
6. In view of above legal position both the learned counsel agreed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and remanding the case to the Appellate Tribunal with direction to it to record evidence of the representative of Forensic Science Laboratory to prove contents of the report, dated 27-7-2000 and also provide opportunity to respondents to cross examine him and then decide the appeal of respondents in the light of material available on record. Thus for the foregoing reasons the petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision as it has been suggested hereinabove. This matter is pending from 2000 and vehicle is in the custody of the Customs Department, therefore, we direct that it shall be disposed of expeditiously. As early as possible preferably within the period of four weeks after receipt hereof.