LAHORE: The Customs Appellate Tribunal has modified the decision of the Customs Adjudication additional collector against M/s Umer Hayat Enterprises by saying that “imposed penalty cannot be sustained”.
Customs Tribunal bench-II Judicial Member Omer Arshad Hakeem heard an appeal filed by M/s Umer Hayat Enterprises, clearing agent against Customs Adjudication additional collector, Customs Land Freight Unit Wagah deputy collector and superintendent. However, the differential amount of sales tax on the import of consignment will be paid as per the decision.
Precise facts for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant appeal are that M/s Jamhoor Textile Mills Limited imported consignment of Indian raw material and sought clearance vide GD No. 19495 filed through M/s Umer Enterprises and claimed the benefits of SRO 1125 (I)/2011 for the payment of sales tax at the rate of two percent instead of 16 percent. Accordingly the customs clearance was allowed.
Later on, the officials observed during the course of audit that the above said consignment was liable to the payment of sales tax at 16 percent and alleged that the importer had wrongly claimed the benefits of the SRO whereas the impugned goods have been deleted from the items of the said SRO.
The Adjudication additional collector after the proceeding remarked that the importer deprived the national exchequer of its legitimate revenue amounting to Rs 2.544 million along with default surcharge in term of Section 34 of the sales tax act.
Being aggrieved from the impugned order, the appellant filed the case in the Customs Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that customs clearance agent filed the GD in according with the documents like invoice, he duly fulfilled the requisite duties and responsibilities during the course of examination and assessment and some others. Counsel for appellant also filed the reference of some other cases before the honourable member of the tribunal.
The representative of the department also briefed the tribunal about the case. After hearing the argument from both sides, the member modified the impugned order passed by the adjudication authority to some extent.
