KARACHI: The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs (Law) Appraisement West filed special customs reference before the Sindh High Court (SHC) challenging impugned order of appellate tribunal against M/s U-Trade Logistics Pvt Ltd.
On August 27, 2019, counsel for applicant argued that the above mentioned importer imported a consignment declared to contain polyester shirting fabric from China and goods cleared dated August 7, 2015 through their nominated Customs House agent M/s U Trade Logistics.
He further argued that information was received that the above mentioned importer and others are involved in clearance of fabric by submitting forged/ fake documents having false particulars and mis-statement by mis-declaring the vital information with regard to shipper’s name, port of loading.
He argued that during the investigation it was confirmed that the instant consignment actually shipped from Dubai, UAE showing consignor’s name as M/s AMI Middle East LLC Dubai, UAE, and consignee’s name as M/s AMI Pakistan Pvt Ltd freight forwarder/ co-loader and electronically fed incorrect information with the customs in the import general manifest (IGM) with regard to port of shipment and origin of the goods and issued fake house bill of lading by mentioning the name of consignee as R Usman Enterprises and port shipment as Ningo, China as against the actually port of shipment as Dubai, UAE.
Counsel further argued that the first information report (FIRs) were lodged against the above mentioned importer and others and sent to adjudication authority, the adjudication authority after considering the merits of the case penalized the respondent which should be upheld in the interest of justice along with any other penalty as may deem fit by this appellate forum for violation of above provision of law.
He stated that being aggrieved, said importer filed an appeal before the appellate tribunal who allowed the appeal and has not considered the factual position in term of section 194 of the customs act, 1969 as well as submissions of the respondent, therefore, the impugned order has far reaching bad effects, thus, it is liable to be set-aside forthwith.
