Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 6,32,196

CUSTOMS ACT, 1969 (IV OF 1969)----Sections: 6, 32 & 196 - SRO. 886(I)/2012, dated 18.07.2012 - Entrustment of functions of the Customs officers to certain other officers – False statement, error, etc: - Interception of a truck loaded with imported cloth by Respondent No. 1 - Seizure of fabric - Show Cause Notice - Order passed for the release of seized vehicle, subject to payment of redemption of vehicle along with container against redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/ - Appeal dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal - Show cause notice as well as order-in-original set aside, having no legal effect - Contention of the legal Advisor for Applicant-department that Respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the allegation of misdeclaration as violation had been committed at import stage resulting into short levy of duties, repelled - Reference to High Court -

FACTS
Brief facts of the case are that staff of Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation Customs, Faisalabad intercepted a truck loaded with cloth imported by respondent No.1. Questions were whether notice under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 could be issued from where the contravened or smuggled goods were recovered or at a place where these goods were imported (Karachi)? However, customs seal affixed on the container was broken and inside the container, bales of Georgette Chiffon fabric was found that was seized and Show Cause Notice to respondents No.1 & 2 & others was issued, seized goods were ordered to be released against payment of duty & taxes. The seized vehicle was also confiscated, however lawful owner was given option to redeem his vehicle along with container against redemption fine of Rs.50,000/-. Appeal before learned Appellate Tribunal, was dismissed and the show cause notice as well as order-in-original was set aside having no legal effect. Hence, instant Reference Application.

ARGUMENTS
Learned Legal Advisor for applicant-department, inter-alia, contended that respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the allegation of mis-declaration attracting offence under Section 32 of the Act of 1969 as violation had been committed at import stage at Karachi port, resulting into short levy of duties, thus, the matter fell beyond the jurisdiction of respondent No.3.