Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 713 2012 SLD 713 2012 PTCL 437 2012 PTD 275
Peshawar High Court
Customs Reference No.1 of 2010, decision dated: 18-10-2011
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE AZMATULLAH MALIK, JUSTICE
Nemo for Petitioner. Muhammad Ali for
Respondents.

FAZALUR-REHMAN

VS

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 2

Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 2(s), 16, 156(1)(8)(89), 168(i) & 196---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.31---Smuggling---Confiscation of vehicle---Reference to High Court---Vehicle alleged to be the smuggled one was confiscated---Vehicle in question when seized was found with tampered chassis number---Petitioner had failed to produce any valid document regarding import of said vehicle, by him or by any other person---Petitioner had failed to prove his ownership or import and Appellate Tribunal, after considering all aspects, had rightly dismissed appeal by the petitioner---Reference to High Court was filed against of Appellate Tribunal after about 10 months of impugned order which was time-barred and petitioner could not offer any plausible explanation for such delay in filing reference; reference was not entertainable on that score alone---No case for interference with the impugned order having been made out, Reference was dismissed, in circumstances. JUDGMENT AZMATULLAH MALIK, J.---The instant reference was filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 18-12-2008 passed by Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar Bench whereby the appeal of petitioner was dismissed and the orders dated 26-3-2008 passed by Collector Customs (Appeals) Peshawar was upheld. 2. It is for the 3rd time that neither the learned counsel nor the petitioner is in attendance despite the service of notice. This is a reference of year 2010 therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to play hide and seek game with the Court hence, we are constrained to decide it on merits. 3. Along with the reference the application seeking condonation of delay was also filed. 4. We firstly would like to take the issue of limitation as the petitioner has submitted an application seeking condonation of delay and notice of this C.M. i.e. 1 of 2010 was issued to the respondents in this regard. 5. Admittedly the impugned order was passed on 18-12-2008 whereas the instant reference was filed on 17-10-2009, which is hopelessly time-barred. Although application for condonation was also filed with the reference yet no plausible explanation was offered…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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