KARACHI: The Model Customs Collectorate (MCC) of Preventive has challenged a judgment of Customs Appellate Tribunal by Ch. Naimatullah, Chairman/Member Judicial-I before the Sindh High Court and raised certain questions of law.
According to the details of the case, on a credible information pertaining to irregular removal of alcoholic drinks by a diplomatic bonded warehouse, M/s A.R & Co., in the guise of ‘ship store supplies’, a team of Director General I&I followed the due process and it was revealed that the bonder had imported alcoholic drinks along with other goods against 29 into-bond bills of entry/Goods Declaration during 2000-2002 as ‘ship stores’.
These drinks were imported by the bonder without any import authorization while claiming exemption from the ban on imports in terms of SRO783(I)/98 declaring the goods as ship stores, which were never supplied or re-exported to the ships.
The Tribunal headed by Ch. Naimatullah ruled in favor of the bonder.
The Appeal noted that the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order by disregarding and ignoring the detailed arguments advanced before him and proceedings on the basis of cursory and arbitrary approach.
The MCC Preventive observed that the Tribunal ought to have applied his mind to the facts of the case before issuance of the order-in-original.
The MCC raises several questions of law including:
1. Whether there is any wrong interpretation of the law by the learned tribunal and impugned order is contrary to law?
2. Whether proceedings initiated against the bonder by issuance of show cause notice was without jurisdiction and was in complete defiance of law?
3. Whether learned tribunal has fell in gross error of law by pronouncing the impugned order in haste and without affording proper opportunity of being heard etc.
The Appeal submitted to the High Court that the findings/order passed by the Tribunal is not consonance with the reasoning. The Tribunal ought to have given findings in the positive. The Tribunal desecrated his own reasoning by the conclusion he carried out.
It is apparent from the language of the order-in-original that the Tribunal has no evidence or basis to pass such an order. He had no information or documents to support the conclusion in the order and has passed the order in vacuum.
It submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the spirit of law and wrongly came to the conclusion. It failed to understand the implication of law and misinterpreted the same.
Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.