LHC dismisses customs official’s petition against tribunal’s decision

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court dismissed a petition of director Customs Intelligence against a decision of Customs Appellate Tribunal (CAT) declaring raid of the petitioner on godowns of the respondents Taimur Tariq Butt and others illegal and without lawful authority as legal requirement were not fulfilled by the search conducting officer and his team.

The court observed that the petitioner by use of phraseology has tried to convert question of fact into a question of law, which is not permissible under the law. The tribunal had held that the respondents duly discharged their burden to possess the said goods under lawful import and the department had failed to establish its allegation of smuggling and had merely based their case on contravention report, to be based upon conjectures and surmises.

The Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation Customs, Lahore recovered 28,323 cartons, measuring 36,172.11 square meters of Chinese Origin, ceramic/porcelain tiles from godowns of the respondents for which no documents in justification of legal import or lawful possession of the foreign origin goods were produced and the same were detained under Section 2 (kk) and 186 of the Customs Act, 1969.

The remaining quantity of 20,416 cartons, measuring 24,188.69 square meters, of Chinese Origin tiles, the brands, description as well as article number batch number of which did not substantiate with the produced documents and records were deemed to be smuggled one and brought into the country, without payment of duty/taxes leviable thereon and stored/dumped and mixed with legally imported goods, with the intention to avoid leviable duty and taxes, which were seized under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 and show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why seized goods involving duties and taxes to the tune of Rs 19,377,883 may not be confiscated and as to why the respondents may not be penalized under the law.

The respondents contested the said show cause notice; however, the impugned order-in-original was passed against the respondents.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022