MULTAN: The Customs Adjudication-I collector has disposed of the Q-Mobile tax evasion case – involving Rs 772 million – on technical grounds that the MCC Multan was not authorised to constitute the case because the consignments were not cleared by that collectorate.
Adjudication-I Collector Dr Fareed Iqbal Qureshi issued the Order-In-Original (ONO) number 441/2014-15 in Q-Mobile tax evasion case with registering number 143/2014.
The collector stated that Bahawalpur, Dera Ghazi Khan and Multan, including airports and railway stations of this region, come under the jurisdiction of MCC Multan, while the consignments were cleared from Customs Preventive Air Freight Unit in Karachi.
It was also stated that according to SRO 967(I) 2007 the exercise of the powers conferred by any customs officers appointed under Section 3 of the Customs Act, 1969, is bound to operate within the specified area of jurisdiction.
According to the verdict, the Multan Customs in its jurisdiction made a seizure of non-duty paid goods on suspicion, which was legal, while it was not notified by the FBR for audit and investigation in the case.
The Customs Adjudication collector said that the impugned mobiles imported by Q-Mobile were cleared by the Customs Preventive and AFU Karachi .Therefore, they were authorised to initiate action against perceived declaration in place of MCC Multan.
The notification 967 (I)/2007 issued by the FBR under Section 3 of the Customs Act, 1969, does not show any powers for MCC Multan over territorial jurisdiction of MCC Preventive Karachi so it was beyond the jurisdiction of MCC Multan and, therefore, legally unsustainable.
It is important to mentions that counsel for Q-Mobile Afzal Ahmad Bhatti challenged the authority of Multan Customs in this case, which was accepted by the Adjudication Department.
On the other hand, the objection of duty tax evasion on smart phones against Q-Mobile imposed by MCC Multan has been admitted by the defence counsel but the argument was on the execution of powers in their defined boundary.
The Customs Adjudication collector has mentioned in the final verdict that “collectorates are a creation of law and have to work according to the law and within the specified jurisdiction allocated by the board”.
It was also mentioned in the verdict that there was vigorous discussion as to the nature of phones categorised in SRO 460(I)/2013 dated 30.05.2013 (amended by SRO 740(I)/2013 dated 26.08.2013 ) which is required to be resolved.
Accordingly, the relevant collectorate was also directed to approach the board for clarity of issued notification and to seek clarity in its interpretation so as to ensure the uniform application of the issued notification for further action.
After the clarification the relevant clearance collectorate may initiate obligatory action as per law that is consistent with protection of the state exchequer.
