Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1935 2017 SLD 1935 2017 PTD 1569
Customs Appellate Tribunal
Customs Appeals Nos. G-1546 to 1555 of 2015, decided on 22-02-2016, hearing Date : 12-02-2016
MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-I, MUHAMMAD NAZIM SALEEM, MEMBER TECHNICAL-II
Aftabullah Shah Deputy Collector and Muhammad Umer, Inspector, present for Appellants. Mallag Assa Dashti for
Respondents

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & OTHERS

VS

THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & OTHERS

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 2(s),16,156(1),156(8),156(89),157(2),161 ,168,171,181,194A

Per Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi, Judicial Member-I (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 2(s), 16, 156(1)(8)(89), 157(2), 168, 171, 181 & 194-A---S.R.O. No. 566(I)/2005, dated 6-6-2005---S.R.O. No. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009---Smuggling---Seizure and confiscation of alleged smuggled Diesel oil---Redemption of vehicle loaded with smuggled diesel oil---Notice under S.171 of the Customs Act, 1969 was issued to the arrested person and proper recovery memo was also prepared---Adjudicating Officer after fulfilment of codal formalities decided to confiscate vehicle loaded with diesel oil in question and also to be confiscated under S.157(2) of Customs Act, 1969---Collector of Customs, Appellate Authority allowed vehicle in question to be redeemed on payment of fine and modified order passed by Adjudicating Officer---Validity---Seizure had been made far from the border area and near populated city---Such seizure was made on the basis of presumptions and assumption---Seizing authorities, had not fulfilled the legal criteria, nor preformed their duty in accordance with prescribed law and rules, and failed to collect the samples from High Speed Diesel Oil loaded on the vehicle in question---Seizing authorities without conducting the chemical process or obtaining any opinion from the concerned laboratories, made declaration that the subject diesel was of foreign origin---Allegation attributed against the respondents, in circumstances, could not be considered as admissible evidence in proof of the claim made by the authorities at the time of seizure---After issuing the show-cause notice, nobody had claimed ownership of diesel oil in question, nor any body had appeared to contest the show-cause notice for the claim of seized property, only owner of the oil tankers contested the subject show-cause notice---Department had relied only on the official statements---Mashirs/witnesses had not been produced before the competent authority---Department had failed to present any substantial evidence to establish the mens rea and connivance of owners of vehicle with the alleged offence---Order of collector (appeals) to release the vehicle in question was well founded in…
🔒
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