| Case ID |
410f11f4-710c-412c-afeb-9c039d729849 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Customs Appeal No. K-751 of 2011 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 09, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Jul 08, 2019 |
| Decision |
The Customs Appellate Tribunal, presided over by Judges Syed Sardar Hussain Shah and Muhammad Sadiq, upheld the original Order-in-Original No.67886 of 2011 issued by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision to confiscate 150 bags of black tea of Indian and Vietnamese origin, seized under sections of the Customs Act, 1969 and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The Tribunal found that the show-cause notice was issued within the stipulated time, the appellant failed to prove lawful possession of the goods, and appropriate procedures were followed. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the confiscation order was maintained. |
| Summary |
In the pivotal case of Customs Appeal No. K-751 of 2011, adjudicated by the Customs Appellate Tribunal on July 9, 2019, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of 150 bags of Indian and Vietnamese black tea seized from a private godown in Karachi. The seizure was executed by the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR under the Customs Act, 1969 and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The appellant, represented by advocate Ch. Rafiq, contested the legitimacy of the show-cause notice issued four months post-seizure, the absence of a notice under Section 171, the onus of proof borne by the department, the lack of imposed penalties, and the claim that the goods were locally procured. However, the Tribunal found that the specific sections under the Customs Act extended beyond the typical two-month limitation period due to the goods being listed under SRO No. 566(I)/2005. The appellant failed to furnish lawful possession documents, and the presence of "Transit to Afghanistan" inscriptions on the goods shifted the burden of proof to the appellant under Sections 156(2) and 187. Given these factors, including proper service of notices and adherence to legal procedures, the Tribunal decisively rejected the appellant's arguments. The legal professionals, including Ch. Rafiq for the appellant and Nemo for the respondents, presented their cases, but the Tribunal maintained the original confiscation order. This case underscores the stringent enforcement of customs regulations and the critical importance of timely and documented compliance by entities involved in import and export operations. The decision reinforces the authority of the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR in combating smuggling and ensures that entities adhere to customs laws, thereby safeguarding national interests and maintaining legal integrity in international trade practices. Additionally, the Tribunal's thorough examination of procedural timelines and burden of proof highlights the judiciary's role in upholding legislative mandates, ensuring that enforcement agencies operate within the boundaries of the law, and protecting the rights of merchants and traders through due process. |
| Court |
Customs Appellate Tribunal
|
| Entities Involved |
Federal Board of Revenue (FBR),
SRO No. 566(I)/2005,
Customs Appellate Tribunal,
Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR,
SRO No. 499(1)/2009
|
| Judges |
SYED SARDAR HUSSAIN SHAH,
MUHAMMAD SADIQ
|
| Lawyers |
Ch. Rafiq,
Nemo
|
| Petitioners |
MESSRS IMRAN AHMED
|
| Respondents |
3 OTHERS,
THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KARACHI
|
| Citations |
2020 SLD 869,
2020 PTD 920
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Customs Act, 1969,
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950
|
| Sections |
16,
163,
168,
171,
181,
187,
17,
129,
156(1)(9),
156(1)(64),
156(1)(89),
156(1)(90),
156(2),
3
|