Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No.28/CU of 2010, decided on 10th May, 2011.
----Ss. 2(s), 168 & 194-A---Smuggling---Seizure of smuggled goods---Seizing Agency made two seizure reports pertaining to alleged smuggled tyres claimed by different owners, but issued one show-cause notice---Goods in question were loaded on two different trucks carrying local made tyres---Record revealed that out of confiscated tyres, 38 were claimed by three persons to whom one show-cause notice was served---Phenomenon had been observed that transportation of smuggled goods from one part of the country to another parts in small shipments to hoodwink the authorities and to defeat the law enunciated under S.2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 and that one financier was controlling the smuggling or transportation of smuggled goods in small shipment by putting up different claimants thereof, in case the goods were intercepted by anti-smuggling outfits---Such practice should be curbed in public interest, rather than taking/deciding the issue compass-sionately keeping in view the value of the goods---Time and place of the occurrence being the same in the present case, there was no reason to differ with the order in appeal which was upheld.
Shoukat Zaman for Appellants.
Jan Bahadur DC/DR with Aga Sabbir SIO and Qazi Ghulam Dastgir for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 13th October, 2010.
This appeal has been filed on 13-5-2010 against the Order-in-Appeal No.13 of 2010 dated 19-3-2010 passed by Collector Customs (Appeals) Islamabad.
2. I have heard both the sides and considered the case record. The learned counsel for the appellant agitated that the seizing agency made two seizure reports pertaining to allegedly smuggled tyres claimed by different owners but issued one show-cause notice with the intention to enhance value of seized goods and bring it under the ambit of section 2(S) of the Customs Act, 1969, which is against the natural justice. Further, these goods were loaded on two different trucks carrying local made tiles. The D.R., however, contended that the confiscated tyres belonged to same person not many.
3. The perusal of the case record transpires that out of confiscated tyres 38 were claimed by three persons to whom one show-cause notice was served. There is no denying of the fact, that a phenomenon has been observed that transportation of smuggled goods from one part of the country to other parts in small shipments hoodwink the authorities and to defeat the law enunciated under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. In most of the circumstances, it has also been detected that one financier is controlling the smuggling or transportation of smuggled goods in small shipment by putting up different claimants thereof, in case the goods are intercepted by the anti-smuggling outfits. This practice should be curbed in the public interest rather than taking/deciding the issue compassionately keeping in view of the value of the goods. Since the time and place of the occurrence of offence is same, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the order-in-appeal and same is upheld.
4. The appeal is dismissed.
H.B.T./253/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.