MULTAN: Dispute arose between the Customs department and a cloth importer regarding the confiscation of locally manufactured cloth.
The importer contested the department’s claim of the cloth being non-duty paid foreign origin goods by requesting independent verification. Subsequently, a local commission was appointed to inspect the manufacturing unit and compare samples of the seized consignment.
The customs staff initially detained the goods upon intercepting a container/trailer and discovering foreign origin non-duty paid clothes. Despite being given the opportunity, the importer failed to produce legal import documents, leading to the detention being converted into seizure on allegations of unauthorized entry into the country without paying duties and taxes.
The importer vehemently argued that the confiscated cloth was not of foreign origin and criticized the lack of specific evidence from the seizing agency. However, the Customs department persisted, claiming the importer failed to justify the legality of the goods, suggesting they were likely brought into the country illegally.
Meanwhile, the importer provided a certificate from the relevant Chamber of Commerce attesting to the local manufacturing unit of the confiscated goods. This prompted the appointment of a local commission to verify the claim, which subsequently confirmed the existence and operational status of the manufacturing unit. The commission’s report also affirmed that the unit produced various types of silk cloth, including the disputed cloth.
Ultimately, it was concluded that the importer had provided sufficient evidence to support their claim, while the Customs department failed to substantiate their allegations. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods was deemed unjustified.
