| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 939 2013 SLD 939 2013 PTD 59 |
Balochistan High Court
Custom Appeal No.2 of 2005, decision dated: 3rd September, 2012, hearing DATE : 24-07-2012
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, JUSTICE ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, JUSTICE
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Custom Appeal No.2 of 2005, decision dated: 3rd September, 2012, hearing DATE : 24-07-2012
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, JUSTICE ABDUL QADIR MENGAL, JUSTICE
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, QUETTA
VS
CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, APPELLATE TRIBUNALIII, QUETTA & another
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 177,181,194C(4),196
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 194-C(4) & 196---Appellate Tribunal---Single Member---Pecuniary jurisdiction---Scope---Valuation of smuggled items---Seizure of smuggled goods and vehicle used to transport the same by Customs authorities (original order)---Collector Customs (appeal) released the vehicle on payment of redemption fine (appellate order)---Appellate Tribunal set aside the original order---Question was whether in such circumstances appellate order also automatically stood annulled---Contention on behalf of Collector Customs (appellant) was that jurisdiction of Single Member of Appellate Tribunal to hear an appeal was Rs.100,000 at the relevant time, whereas the valuation of seized goods exceeded Rs.500,000, therefore, Appellate Tribunal was not competent to have passed the impugned order---Contention on behalf of vehicle owner (respondent) was that Single Member of Appellate Tribunal was competent to hear appeals where valuation of smuggled items did not exceed Rs.500,000, and that his appeal was found competent by the Appellate Tribunal as valuation of seized goods was Rs.361,000---Validity---At the time of appeal in question Single Member of Appellate Tribunal was authorized to hear matters involving amounts up to Rs. 100,000 but this was subsequently amended to Rs.500,000---Amendment could not be given retrospective effect and a jurisdictional defect could not be rectified on the same basis---Valuation of smuggled goods collectively exceeded Rs.500,000---Single Member of Appellate Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter at the relevant time---Appellate Tribunal had set-aside the original order but the appellate order still occupied the field---Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal was set-aside and case was remanded to the Tribunal for decision in accordance with the law. Messrs Aman and Amin Trading Co. through Proprietor v. Deputy Collector of Customs, Appraising Intelligence Branch, Karachi 2008 PTD Kar. 459 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, JUSTICE:---.--- By this order, we propose to answer the law points involved in the instant reference/ application, filed under section 196 of theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492