| Case ID |
67a5b914-6bcb-452a-89eb-9f75e9b3b4b0 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Appeal No.86/LB of 2005 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 20, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 03, 2005 |
| Decision |
The appeal has been accepted, and the impugned order that confiscated the vehicle has been set aside. The tribunal concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the vehicle was smuggled or liable for confiscation, primarily due to insufficient evidence regarding the chassis number and its origin. The vehicle will be returned to the appellant, Lal Khan, as the evidence presented contradicted the allegations of smuggling. |
| Summary |
In the case of Appeal No.86/LB of 2005, the Customs Tribunal examined the confiscation of a Hino Prime Mover vehicle under the Customs Act of 1969. The case revolved around the interpretation of 'seizure' and the necessary evidentiary standards to establish that goods were liable for confiscation due to smuggling. The tribunal found that the prosecution could not convincingly prove that the vehicle in question was smuggled, as the evidence provided did not sufficiently support the claims of tampering or discrepancies in the chassis number. The appeal was accepted, allowing for the return of the vehicle to the appellant, emphasizing the importance of due process in customs law and the necessity for clear, compelling evidence in confiscation cases. |
| Court |
Customs Tribunal
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Mian Muhammad Jahangier,
Mehmood Alam
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
Lal Khan
|
| Respondents |
Collector Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax (Adjudication) Multan
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 650,
2005 PTD 2241
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Customs Act (IV of 1969)
|
| Sections |
2(s),
156(1),
168,
169,
171,
180
|