| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1146 2016 SLD 1146 2016 PTD 1847 |
Customs Appellate Tribunal
Cus. Appeal No. K-664 of 2011, decided on 14th February,2015. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2015.
ADNAN AHMED (MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II)
Nadeem Ahmed Mirza (Consultant) for Appellant.Khalid Pervaiz (Appraiser) for
Respondents.
Cus. Appeal No. K-664 of 2011, decided on 14th February,2015. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2015.
ADNAN AHMED (MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II)
Nadeem Ahmed Mirza (Consultant) for Appellant.Khalid Pervaiz (Appraiser) for
Respondents.
Messrs MALIK RUBBER SHEET FACTORYVsDEPUTY COLLECTOR and another
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 179,181,193A
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------S. 179---S.R.O. 371(I)/2002 dated 15-6-2002---Department assumed jurisdiction on basis of involved amount of duty and taxed enunciated under S. 179 of Customs Act, 1969 and S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2002 dated 15-6-2002---Amount of duty, taxed and revenue loss to exchequer was non-existent by virtue of the fact that duty and taxes shown in GD on declared value came to Rs. 15,509.00 and case of said amount fell within the jurisdiction of Assistant Collector of Customs not with the authority issuing show-cause notice under S. 179 of Customs Act, 1969 prior to amendment through Finance Act, 2006---Present case was not of evasion of duty instead was that of importability, duty and taxes on goods to be paid by importer upon finalization of assessment order under S. 80 of Customs Act, 1969---Authority to adjudicate such case was Principal Appraiser vide S.R.O. 371(I)/2002 dated 15-6-2002---Department, inspite of clarity in expression of S. 179 of Customs Act, 1969, and Serial No. 30 of S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2002 and directions of Federal Board of Revenue to the adjudicating authorities issued show-cause notice while usurping powers of its subordinate in derogation of S. 179 of Customs Act, 1969 and S.R.O. No. 371(I)/2002 and direction of the Board---Department had gone beyond the allotted sphere of defined jurisdiction.Case law referred.(b) Administration of justice-------Neither superior nor subordinate quasi- judicial authorities were empowered to eclipse powers of their subordinate/superior, in course of adjudication proceedings---If mandatory condition for exercise of jurisdiction by specified authorities was not fulfilled as per expressed provision of relevant law, entire proceedings which followed became illegal and suffered from want of jurisdiction/powers---Any order passed in continuation of such proceedings in adjudication or appeal equally suffered from illegality and were without jurisdiction---Appellate Authority intentionally ignored provisions of relevant law while passing order-in-appeal---Show-cause notice being without power/jurisdiction, entire proceedings right from show-cause notice to order-in-appeal were also without…