Messrs WORLD TRADERS through Proprietor Muhammad Alam vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that remanded a customs dispute back to the Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question involved the procedural validity of the Tribunal's decision-making process, specifically regarding the handling of a disagreement between the Chairman and a Member Technical, the subsequent referral to a Third Member, and the irregular practice of re-circulating the order to the First Member Technical after the Third Member had already concurred with the Chairman. The Supreme Court found that the High Court correctly identified significant procedural illegalities in the Tribunal's handling of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the remand order, holding that the petitioner retains the right to raise all relevant objections before the Tribunal during the rehearing. The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities in tribunal adjudication necessitate a remand for proper determination in accordance with the law, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal as it lacked merit.
- Can a party challenge a High Court order remanding a matter to an appellate tribunal for procedural irregularities?
- Is a tribunal order valid if it involves irregular circulation of the decision among members after a Third Member has already concurred with the Chairman?
- Section 196, Customs Act 1969
' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 30th of May, 2002, whereby appeal filed by the respondent was accepted and the case was remitted to the learned Custom Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) to decide the matter.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner imported an assignment which was confiscated by the Adjudicating Officer. The matter was agitated before the Tribunal comprising of learned Chairman and the Member Technical. The learned Chairman disagreed with the proposed order recorded by Member Technical, whereupon he framed a question and referred the same to the Third Member Technical based at Karachi. The Third Member agreed with the proposed order of the Chairman, whereupon the latter accepted the appeal treating it a final order of the Tribunal. However, he sent the order to the First Member Technical who again wrote certain objections pointing out his own view second time.
3. The respondent filed Civil Appeal No,271 of 2002 under section 196 of the Customs Act 1969 against the said order which has been accepted through the impugned judgment. The case has been remanded by the learned Judges detailing out the legal flaws in the order. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the record appended with this petition. We have noticed that the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court have pointed out certain illegalities in the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal. They have pinpointed said flaws in para-6 of the judgment. The argument of the learned counsel that the case be remitted to the High Court in line with the earlier judgment passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No,377 of 2001 is not apt. Said case is totally distinguishable from the facts of the present case. It is only a remand order and the petitioner would be well within his right to raise all the objections before the Tribunal.
' Resultantly, the petition being without any force is dismissed and the leave refused.