| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2112 2010 SLD 2112 2010 PTD 315 |
C. A. No.1023/LB of 2005, decision dated: 13-04-2009,hearing DATE : 24-03-2009
DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant. Muhammad Farooq, Inspector for
Respondent.
Law:
Section:
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss.2(s), 16 & 156(1)(80)(89)---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. (1) & (3)---Smuggle---Confiscation of seized vehicle on the ground-of tampered/manipulated chassis number and being smuggled one brought into the country through unauthorized route without payment of duty/taxes---Appellant had placed on record catena of documents that the vehicle had duly been imported and sold from hand to hand and the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice---Copy of bill of Entry had been placed on record according to which vehicle had been imported---All the documents issued by the Port Trust were also placed on record---Application for registration certificate was made and relevant document in connection with registration were produced---Vehicle was sold to different persons as explained in the reply to show-cause notice and all the documents were on record---Motor Registration Authority before registration got it confirmed from Customs House, as to. whether any vehicle of said description had earlier been registered---Letters were addressed to all Motor Registration Authorities in all four Provinces and when authorities gat satisfied that the vehicle had not been registered anywhere else prior to it, the registration was made---Such was sufficient safeguard to avoid machination---No suppression of facts all along--No evidence that there was any other vehicle plying in the country with such description---Appellant had not been confronted with any laboratory report which had been obtained at his back---In the presence' of plethora of record regarding vehicle, appellant could not be non suited merely . on the report of Forensic Science Laboratory---Department having disposed of vehicle in violation of injunctive order, vehicle was to be retrieved---Appeal was accepted---Order was set aside and it was directed by the Tribunal that vehicle in question be returned to its lawful owner, the appellant---Customs department may return the consideration obtained against such vehicle from the Pak PWD for retrieval of the vehicle for onward handing over to the appellant. Salooka Steel Mills, Limited v.…