‘Benefit of doubt’: Jewellery importer defeats confiscation of goods

LAHORE: An importer of artificial jewellery has defeated confiscation of the imported goods by the customs department on the principle of benefit of doubt after offering a reasonable explanation of the authenticity of import documents to the directorate of intelligence and investigation, said sources.

The directorate had shifted the burden of proof upon him to disprove that his intentions were not to defraud the exchequer or evade any prohibition or restriction under the law. But the importer established the point that the said presumption of burden of proof could not be drawn until the directorate first takes his explanation into consideration. He maintained that since he has offered a reasonable explanation regarding lawful import against payment of duties therefore the burden has shifted upon the department to establish its case.

The directorate had received credible information regarding non-duty paid /smuggled artificial jewellery. Accordingly, it intercepted the trailer full of the consignment. However, the driver produced legal import documents regarding legitimate import, lawful possession and transportation of the jewellery.

On the perusal of the said documents, the examination report endorsed on the reverse of goods declaration was legally cleared by the relevant collectorate of customs. But the department claimed that it was all done as an afterthought by the importer without bothering to verify the import documents with relevant to goods declarations on record, especially when the documents related to bilty along with GD were verified to be correct to establish bona fides of the importer.

The importer stressed the point that the seizing agency could not establish that the goods had entered the country from unauthorized route or were cleared without payment of leviable duty and taxes. He further agitated that he has discharged his legal obligation/onus by providing all the documents pertaining to commercial imports. But the department denied them on the presumption that they are concocted and fabricated with ulterior motive better known to them.

According to the importer, the directorate officials had carried out search without obtaining a search warrant from the Magistrate, which was against the concept of the due process of law.

The relevant appellate authority stood by the importer while maintaining that the seizing agency proceeded with the case without taking into consideration the material particulars and documentary evidence submitted by the importer and all the departmental orders were passed while brushing aside the credible evidence.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024