BEFROE THE HONOURABLE COLLECTOR

COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS KARACHI

81-C, Block-6, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi

Customs Appeal NO.200/2024

Deputy Director,
Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation-Customs,
Regional office,, Hyderabad ………...
………………..Appellant.

Versus

1. Abdul Mannan s/o Abdul salam ,

Karachi Imam bargah,
Dr Mohan lal,
Larkana.

2. The Deputy Collector Customs

(Adjudication), Quetta Camp at office at
Hyderabad……………………………………Respondents.

COMMENTS

On behalf of respondent No.1 namely Abdul Manan s/o Abdul

Slam Karachi the parawise comments in respect to the appeal

filed by the above named appellant are as under:-

Preliminary Objections:
1. That impugned Order is unlawful, unwarranted,
illegal,
unjust, unreasonable and void, hence liable to be vacated on
this score alone.
2. That from perusal of the SCN it is clear that none of the
seized item/ dry fruits is notified item in SRO-566(1) 2005
dated 06-6-2005 and as such provisions of section 2(s) are not
applicable in this case.
3. That Respondent not 1 is running business of dry fruits
which he purchased from local market.
4. That aforementioned SRO Conferred powers and these
powers does not come Directorate of Intelligence and
Investigation-Customs. Yet, not jurisdiction to confiscate.

PARAWISE.

1. That content of para no. 1 is denied as Respondent 1.

(owner of almonds) is not owner of seized passenger bus, so, it
doesn’t require him to take route permission or NOC from
department.

2. That claimant have receipt/Bill that show that almonds are

locally purchased. Furthermore, case is undervalued.
Therefore, no need of importer GD and nor notified items nor
mentioned in SRO 566 (i) 2005

3. That the content of para no 3 does not need to be replied.

4. That in content of Para No. 4 seized items are perishables

goods and we are ready to pay 20% redemption fine and also
pay duty and taxes case has under value and are not notified
items under SRO 566(i) 2005 neither claimed owner is not a
importer. He purchases local market goods which are available
in every local market of Pakistan
5. That as per content of the Para No.5 good are under value so
they don’t fall in section 156 clause 89 of the Customs Act
1969. Lack of jurisdiction.

6. That allegation in para no 6 is denied. Respondent has

nothing to do with other material in bus, i.e diesel etc.

7. That Para No.7 is denied. Respondent is passenger carrying

locally purchased almonds in bus.
8. That Para No. 8 is denied, the respondent is not owner of
the seized bus and truck. He is the only passenger.

.
9. That there is absolutely no evidence with the
customs authorities which could prove that appellant smuggled
the seized Almonds from Iran or that seized almonds are of
Iranian origin
PRAYER
In view of the above submissions it is prayed that
this Honorable Forum considering the above submissions
dismiss the Appeal upheld impugned order with modification of
retaking imposed fine and direct the Appellants to release the
seized Almonds to the respondent.

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No 1

KARACHI.
DATED: 14-03-2024