Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32,25,168,32(1)(2),156(1),168(2)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 168(2) & 180---Non-issuance of show cause notice within two months from date of seizure of goods---Effect---Non-issuance of such notice would neither vitiate or invalidate entire proceedings nor washed away civil and criminal liability, but only the person from whose possession goods were seized would become entitled to return of goods. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUIE, J.---This appeal was admitted to consider the following questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision of section 32 of the Customs Act can be attracted/applied where the consignment was subjected to First Appraisement System? (ii) Whether the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has correctly interpreted and applied the provision contained in section 25 of the Customs Act read with relevant rules contained in the Customs Rules? (iii) Whether the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that the show cause notice-was not barred under the provision of section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969? The relevant facts as stated in the statement of facts appended with the reference application are that the applicant a Proprietory concern, is engaged in import of auto-parts and specifically Suzuki auto-parts. The applicant imported the auto-parts. Consignment arrived on 24-3-2004 and Bill of Entry was filed. According to applicant the imported consignment as examined by the staff of the customs under First Appraisement System, whereupon the declared value of US $ 5665 was enhanced to US $ 14110. According to applicant though the assessment was violative of law but in order to save himself from the demurrage, duty and taxes assessed were paid and the consignment was made out of charge on 26-4-2004. Still the delivery of consignment was refused to applicant on the verbal orders of Customs Appraisement and Intelligence. It is alleged that no Detention Memo. was served. Harassment was caused to the applicant and therefore, the applicant filed a Constitution Petition bearing No. D-73 of 2004 in the High Court contending that after charging the duty at the assessed…

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