Ono x

G O V E R N M E N T OF PAKISTAN C O L L E C T O R A T E OF C U S T O M S (ADJUDICATION-I) 1 1 t h FLOOR, C U S T O M HOUSE KARACHI

No. ITC/14/2013-V(ll) PCA-LHR-C/01/2011 (Case # 33/2012)

BEFORE:

Dated.

S H A H A N S H A H HASNAIN Collector of Customs, AdjudicationCustom House, Karachi.

Order- in- Original No. 1.

.04.2014.

/2013-14

This copy is granted free of charge for the private use of the person to whom it is issued.

2.

An appeal against this order lies under section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969 to the Customs Appellate Tribunal, 3 r d Floor Jamil Chamber, Saddar Karachi, within 60 days of the communication of this order. An appeal should bear a court fee stamp of Rs. 1,000/-

3.

The appellant should state in his appeal if he desires to be heard in person or through advocate.

Case: MIS-DECLARATION OF DESCRIPTION AND EVASION OF C U S T O M S DUTY AND O T H E R TAXES A M O U N T I N G TO RS. 11,736,808/- ON IMPORT OF ELECTRICAL G O O D S BY M/S. A C E A B R O W N BOVERI (ABB) (PRIVATE) LIMITED. LAHORE fCONTRAVENTTION REPORT NO. 33/2012 DATED 26.04.2012 OF PCA, LAHORE.

1.

RESPONDENTS:

i)

M/s. Acea Brown Boveri (ABB) Private Limited, 4-B, Chamba House, Lane, G.O.R.1, Lahore.

ii)

M/s. Expeditor International Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore.

iii)

M/s. Exel Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore.

2.

CASE INSTITUTED BY:

Directorate of Post Clearance Audit, House, Nabha Road, Lahore.

3.

DATE OF INSTITUTION:

20.06.2013

4.

DATE OF HEARING:

16.12.2013, 06.01.2014, 06.02.2014, 25.02.2014, 06.03.2014, 13.03.2014, 18.03.2014, 07.04.2014 & 22.04.2014

Custom

Page 1 of 11

5.

DATE OF J U D G M E N T :

6.

PRESENT:

22.04.2014 a)

For the Respondent: M/s. Lala Rukh Hussain & Mr. S. Aminuddin Fakir, Advocates

b)

For the Prosecution: Mr. Ali Akbar & Mr. Shahid Malik Appraising Officers, MCC-Appraisement (West), Karachi.

O R D E R It was reported by Directorate of Post Clearance Audit, Custom House, Nabha Road, Lahore through Model Customs Collectorate of Appraisement (West), Custom House, Karachi that M/s. ABB (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore imported electric goods i.e. circuit breakers, relays, contractors and part / components of finished articles for onwards sale/supply. During post clearance scrutiny of data pertaining to the clearance made against Serial Nos. 16& 21 of SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05.06.2006. It has been found that M/s. ABB (Pvt) Limited, Lahore (NTN-0829374) had availed inadmissible benefit of Serial Nos.16 &21 of the SRO 575(l).2006 dated 05.06,2006 on the imported electric goods i.e. circuit breakers, relays, contractors and part / components of finished articles for onwards sale / supply which are neither their bona fide project requirement nor falls within the ambit of machinery, equipment other capital goods, like plant, machinery, equipment, spares and accessories, required for the manufacture of production of any goods. Accordingly, an audit observation vide C.No.PCA/LHR-C/01/2174 dated 20.01.2011 for evasion of duty / taxes Rs. 225,261,567/- was issued to the importers. The importers replied the audit observation along with relevant records / evidence and pointed out certain calculation errors in the statement of short paid amount of duty and taxes which were examined in juxtaposition to the record available with this office. The examination of these records leads to find out further observations.

02.

Whereas, Serial Nos. 16& 21 of SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05.06.2006 extend benefit to the service sector and industrial concerns on import of machinery, equipment and other capital goods from Custom duty in excess of 5% and from whole of Sales Tax subject to certain conditions, including that the imported goods are not listed on the locally manufactured items notified through a Customs General Order issued by the Federal Board of Revenue and Chief Executive or Head of the Importing Company shall certify in the prescribed manner and format as per Annex-A that the imported items are the company's bona fide requirements.

03.

From the foregoing, it is evident that the importer, knowingly, willfully and deliberately and with the connivance of customs clearing agents M/s. Expeditor International Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore and M/s. Exel Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore had misdeclared his imported goods and claimed / avail inadmissible benefit of serial No. 16 and 21 of SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05.06.2006 as such evade duty and taxes to the tune of Rs. 11,736,808/- (CD Rs. 77,25,904/, Sales Tax Rs. 548,442/-, Additional Sales Tax Rs. 24,65,484/-, Income Tax Rs. 965,068/- and Special Federal

Page 2 of 11

Excise Duty Rs. 31,910/-) and therefore, contravened the provisions of Section 32(1 &2) of the Customs Act, 1969 and SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05.06.2006 read with section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 Section 3-A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and section 148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, punishable under clause 10(A) & 14 of sub-section (1) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, section 33(5) & (34) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 8, 19(1)&(2) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005.

04.

M/s. ABB (Private) Ltd. Lahore (NTN-0829374) (importer) and the clearing agents M/s. Expeditor International Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore and M/s. Exel Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore were called upon to show cause as to why penal proceedings should not be initiated against them for violation of above mentioned provisions of the law.

05.

Ms. Lala Rukh Hussain and Mr. S. Aminuddin, Advocates of M/s. Kabraji and Talibuddin appeared for hearing on behalf of the respondent i.e. M/s. ABB (Private) Limited and submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice, contents of which are reproduced below: On the basis of instructions received from our client, ABB (Private) Limited ("ABB"), we respond to the above referred notice (hereinafter referred to as the "Show Cause Notice") as follows: 1.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.1

ABB received an Audit Observation, bearing reference no: C. No. PCA/LHR-C/01/2010/74, dated 21 January 2011, issued by the Directorate of Customs Post Clearance Audit, Lahore (the "PCA") for the amount PKR 255, 261, 567 (the "Audit Observation").

1.2

ABB responded to the Audit Observation through Messrs. Ernst & Young Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder ( " E Y " ) wherein it was stated that the working for PKR 255,261,567 provided by the PCA contained numerous errors, including, inter alia, duplication of a majority of the entries.

1.3

Subsequently, a meeting was held between Mr. Amir Yunus of EY and Ms. Zahra Haider, Deputy Director, Directorate of Customs Post Clearance Audit (the "DCPCA") on 21 February 2011 in order to discuss the various discrepancies contained in the Audit Observation; pursuant to which, a Revised Audit Observation bearing reference number C. No. PCA/LHR-C/01/2011/209 was issued by the DCPCA on 18 July 2011 for the amount PKR 179,683,961 (the "Revised Observation"),

1.4

ABB submitted its detailed response to the Revised Observation on 9 September 2011 and arguments for the matter were heard on 15 September 2011; No further correspondence occurred in the matter after September 2011 until this Show Cause Notice.

2.

R E S P O N S E TO THE S H O W C A U S E N O T I C E

2.1

The following response to the Show Cause Notice is submitted without prejudice to any of ABB's right in law or in fact, including the right to contest the jurisdiction of the Collector, Collectorate of

Page 3 of 11

Customs (Adjudication-!), Karachi (the "Adjudication Collector" and/or "you'7"y째ur") for issuing the Show Cause Notice in the first instance, in addition, and notwithstanding the contents of the response set out hereinbelow, ABB reserves the right to submit a detailed response to the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice provided the discrepancies noted hereinbelow are rectified in either these or in such proceedings as may subsequently be instituted against ABB on the basis of the department's assertion (which is denied) that ABB has misdeclared any goods or that it is not entitled to the benefit of S.R.O 575(l)/2006 dated 05 June 2006 (the "SRO").

2.2.

For the sake of good order, it is respectfully submitted that ABB is entitled to avail the benefit under the SRO, and has not, knowingly, willfully and/or deliberately misdeclared its imported goods in order to avail an inadmissible benefit under the SRO and further submissions in support of this assertion shall be advanced at the appropriate stage as noted hereinabove.

2.3.

Following receipt of the Show Cause Notice, we visited your office in order to seek details in relation to the case to be defended by ABB and, by a letter dated 27 December 2013, requested the following information: (i)

an itemized breakdown of the alleged inadmissible benefit amounting to PKR 11,736,808;

(ii)

a copy of each Goods Declaration, along with an itemized breakdown of the custom, sales and income tax applicable thereon, in respect of which the alleged inadmissible benefit amounting to PKR 11,736,808 has been claimed; and

(iii)

specify the components/goods in each Goods Declaration in respect of which the alleged inadmissible benefit amounting to PKR 11,736,808 has been claimed.

Copy of Letter dated 21 December Annexure "A"

2013 is attached

herewith

as

2.4.

On 06 January 2014, being cognizant of the fact that no meaningful representation/ response to the Show Cause Notice could be made in the absence of the requested information, you kindly directed the PCA to provide the relevant information.

2.5.

After much following up, the PCA provided an illegible copy of the breakdown amounting to PKR 11,736,808.

Copy of PCA's Letter C. No. PCA/Lhr-C/01/2011/62 dated 22 January 2014 along with the illegible copy of the breakdown amounting to PKR 11,736,808 is attached herewith as Annexure "B"

2.6.

Subsequently, a legible copy of the PCA's record was provided on 29 January 2014 and, on 6 February 2014, ABB was directed to submit

Page 4 of 11

iib response to trie Show Cause Notice on the basis of the legible copy of the record provided by the PCA. Legible Copy of the breakdown amounting attached herewith as Annexure "C"

to PKR 11,736,808 is

2.7.

Upon scrutiny of the record provided by the PCA, which forms the basis of this Show Cause Notice, it becomes clearly evident that it is full of factual errors including, inter alia, the Pakistan Customs Tariff Number, description of the goods, origin of the goods, quantity of the goods, the currency, the exchange rate, the import value, the customs duty paid on the goods, the income tax paid. These irreconcilable errors go to the root of the Show Cause Notice, rendering it, in our respectful submission, unsustainable in law and in fact.

2.8.

By way of an example, if the PCA were to have carefully examined the very first Goods Declaration identified in the record provided by it (Machine No. KPR-HC-12476 dated 10 August 2010), it would have noted that: the Pakistan Customs Tariff Code was 8504.4090 and not 8504.409; the origin of the goods was Hamburg and not Sweden; the quantity was 2 and not 250; the currency was United States Dollars and not Euro; the exchange rate was 85.9 and not 110.69; the custom duty paid was 28,956 and not 5,265, the income tax paid was 30,404 and not 5,529 and the description of the goods was "Frequency Converter ACS-800-01-0135-3 AUA0000005172" and not "ABB .. ...ABB..P&S-332P6W 1SFA6" and would not have fowarded the case to your good office for prosecution in its current form.

2.9.

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the entire basis of the Show Cause Notice is flawed to such an extent that it renders it liable to be recalled and discharged.

3.

PRAYER

3.1

We respectfully pray that the Show Cause Notice be recalled and discharged as continuing the proceedings on the basis of this Show Cause Notice will result in a severe denial of due process and shall be against all norms of procedural fairness and natural justice.

06.

The Collectorate was represented by Mr. Ali Akbar and Mr. Shahid Malik, Appraising Officers. They defended the charges leveled in the Show Cause Notice.

They reiterated the points already presented by them during hearings.

07.

The Directorate of Post Clearance Audit, Custom House, Lahore submitted parawise comments on the reply to the Show Cause Notice submitted by the respondent which are reproduced below: 1.

Preliminary Statement.

1.1.

1.2.

No comments.

Audit observation due to short payment of duty / taxes amounting to Rs. 225,261567/- was issued to the importer M/s. Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) Private Limited,

Page 5 of 11

Lahore through his counsel namely Eernst & Young Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder, Chartered Accountants, Lahore, submitted reply on 01-02-2011, 23-02-2011, 28-09-2011.

Documents of the importer submitted in response to audit observation were scrutinized in detail. With the consent of importer recoverable amount of duty I taxes was settled as Rs. 179,683,961/- Revised amount to the tune of Rs. 179,683,961/- instead of earlier amount Rs. 225,261,567/- was communicated vide letter C.No. PCA/LHR/C/01/2011/209 dated 18-07-2011 (Annex-A). It is further submitted that subject contravention report No. 33/2012 involves duty / taxes to the tune of Rs. 11,736,808/-only.

1.3.

Comments as in para-1.2 supra.

1.4.

M/s. M/s. Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) Private Limited, Lahore was not agreed with audit observation.

Contravention report was framed and forwarded to the adjudication authority for further legal proceedings.

R E S P O N S E TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 2.1

Department will defend his observation on factual and legal grounds before the adjudication forum as and when notice is received in this regard.

2.2

This para has no solid grounds for which reply can be offered. It is submitted that serial No. 16 & 21 of SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05-06-2006 extend benefit to the service sector and industrial concerns on import of machinery, equipment and other capital goods from Customs duty, in excess of 5% and whole of Sales Tax subject to fulfillment of certain conditions including that the imported goods are not listed in the locally manufactured items notified under CGO. Annex-A of SRO provides that imported items shall be for company's bona fide requirements.

M/s, ABB (private) Limited , Lahore had availed inadmissible benefit of serial No. 16 & 21 of SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05-062006 on the import of electrical goods (i.e. circuit breakers, relays, contactor, parts / components of finished articles for onwards sales I supply). Theses goods were not their bona fide project requirements. These goods not fall within the ambit of machinery, equipment or other capital goods and accessories, required for manufacture or production of any goods. Moreover, the importer and supplier were found related persons but association charges @ 5% were not included in some consignments. Further goods were included in the list of locally manufactured items notified vide CGO 11/2007 as well. It has also been noticed that after issuance of audit observation onwards the importer is regularly paying full duty and taxes without benefit of SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05-06-2006.

Page 6 of 11

2.3

Item-wise and GD-wise details have already been provided to the legal counsel of the importer. However, a copy of same is enclosed (Annex-B).

2.4

The legal counsel of the importer has already obtained relevant documents of the case from the PCA, Lahore in order to prepare reply to show cause notice.

2.5

Legible copy of working sheet of duty / taxes was handed over to the legal counsel of the importer. Annex-B may be seen in this regard.

2.6

Needs no comments.

2.7

No particular errors have been indicated except meaningless allegations. No precise comments can be tendered. However, factual and legal position of the case has been mentioned in para-2.2 above.

2.8

On account of these shortcoming, amount of whole audit observation was reduced from Rs. 255,261,567/to Rs. 179,683,961/- while the instant contravention report involved Rs. 11,736,808/- If the importer has doubt about calculation of duty / taxes. These figures can be reconciled on re-examination of relevant records of subject contravention report.

2.9

Audit observation and contravention report is in accordance with provisions of relevant laws. Reply to show cause notice submitted by the counsel of the importer is based on unfounded and flimsy grounds.

3.

PRAYER

3.1

It is prayed that case may kindly be decided on merits on the basis of factual and legal position of the case. Order for payment of duty / taxes may be issued.

08.

M/s. Kabraji and Talibuddin on behalf of the respondent i.e. M/s. ABB (Private) Limited submitted counter comments, contents of which are reproduced below: On the basis of instructions received from our client, ABB (Private) Limited ( " A B B " ) , we respond to the above referred para-wise comments (hereinafter referred to as the "Comments") as follows: 1.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The following response to the Comments is submitted without prejudice to any of ABB's right in law or in fact and, in this regard, the contents of Paragraph 2.1 of the K&T Response may graciously be deemed to have been incorporated by reference into the present response and applied, mutatis mutandis, hereto. In addition, it is respectfully submitted that, as per the provisions of section 179(3) of

Page 7 of 11

the Customs Act, 1969, in the absence of a written intimation to ABB of an extension with reasons thereof (which in the instant case is conspicuously absent), the period within which the instant case was required to be decided expired as of 04 April 2014, rendering your good self without any lawful authority/jurisdiction to now pass any order on the Show Cause Notice.

Copies of the Honourable Supreme Court's judgment in Khalid Maehmood versus Collector of Customs [1999 SCMR 1881] and the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench I, Islamabad decisions in Messrs Automotive Products (Pvt) Ltd and Others versus Muhammad Ijaz and others [2013 PTD 9Trib) 1845] and Messrs Tay abba Agencies and 2 others versus Additional Collector of Customs - IV and others [2013 PTD 9Trib) 2284] (respectively) are attached herewith for ready reference.

2.

P A R A - W I S E R E S P O N S E TO T H E C O M M E N T S

The Para-wise response hereinbelow is being set out without prejudice in any manner to the objection set out hereinabove and merely for the purpose of demonstrating that these proceedings are even otherwise incompetent (being violative of the principles of due process and natural justice) rendering the Show Cause Notice liable to even otherwise be recalled and discharged.

2.1

The contents of Paragraph 1.1 of the Comments are noted.

2.2

The contents of paragraph 1.2 of the Comments are responded to as follows:

2.2.1

Whilst it is accepted that a meeting was held between Mr. Amir Yunus of EY and Ms. Zahra Haider, Deputy Director, Directorate of Customs Post Clearance Audit (the " D C P C A " ) on 21 February 2011 in order to discuss the various discrepancies contained in the Audit Observation bearing reference no: C. No. PCA/LHR-C/01/2010/74, dated 21 January 2011, it is expressly denied that the recoverable amount of duty/taxes was settled at PKR 179,683,961 with the consent of ABB as alleged, or howsoever.

2.2.2

In fact, following the meeting specified in Paragraph 1.2.1 hereinabove, a Revised Audit Observation bearing reference number C. No. PCA/LHR-C/01/2011/209 was issued by the DCPCA on 18 July 2011 for the amount PKR 179,683,961 (the "Revised Observation") and ABB submitted its detailed response to the Revised Observation on 9 September 2011 which clearly stated the position that ABB is entitled to avail the benefit under the SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05 June 2006 (the "SRO"), and has not, knowingly, willfully and/or deliberately misdeclared its imported goods in order to avail an inadmissible benefit under the SRO with a prayer that the Revised Observation be set aside. Arguments were heard on 15 September 2011 and there was no further development in the matter after September 2011 until issuance of the Show Cause Notice.

2.2.3

Paragraph 1.2 of the Comments also refers an "Annex-A", being a letter bearing reference C. No. PCA/LHR/C/01/2011/209 dated 18-072011; however, Annex-A was not attached to the copy of the Comments provided to us.

Page 8 of 11

2.3

In response to Paragraph 1.3 of the Comments, the contents of Paragraph 1.2 hereinabove are repeated.

2.4

In response to Paragraph 1.4 of the Comments, it is accepted that ABB did not agree to the Revised Audit Observation but submitted its response to the same on 9 September 2011. It is reiterated that following the hearing on 15 September 2011, there was no further development in the matter until issuance of the Show Cause Notice and ABB had no knowledge or intimation of any Contravention Report until the receipt of the Show Cause Notice.

2.5

In response to Paragraph 2.1 of the Comments, the contents of Paragraph 2.1 of the K&T Response are reiterated.

2.6

The contents of paragraph 2.2 of the Comments are denied; it is respectfully submitted that ABB is entitled to avail the benefit under the SRO, and has not, knowingly, willfully and/or deliberately misdeclared its imported goods in order to avail an inadmissible benefit under the SRO.

2.6.1.

It is submitted that in the present proceedings, the record provided by the DCPCA, which forms the basis of the Show Cause Notice, is full of irreconcilable factual errors, including, inter alia, the Pakistan Customs Tariff Number, description of the goods, origin of the goods, quantity of the goods, the currency, the exchange rate, the import value, the customs duty paid on the goods, the income tax paid (as evidenced in Paragraph 2.6.2 hereinbelow).

2.6.2. By way of an example, the following table shows a comparison between the details provided by the DCPA and the actual Good Declaration found in ABB's records for the very first Goods Declaration identified in the DCPA's records, i.e. Machine No. KPRHC-12476 dated 10 August 2010: Comparison between PCA Record and Actual GD Machine No. KPR-HC-12476 dated 10 August 2010 Item Actual GD PCA Record Pakistan Customs 8504.4090 8504.409 Tariff Code Origin Hamburg Sweden Quantity

2

250

Currency

United States Dollars

Euro

Exchange Rate

85.9

110.69

Custom Duty

28,956

5,265

Income Tax

30,404

5,529

Description of the Goods

"Frequency Converter ACS-800-01-0135-3 AUA0000005172"

ABB ABB..P&S332P6W 1SFA6

Page 9 of 11

Copy of the Goods Declaration bearing Machine Number KPRHC-12476 dated 10 August 2010, duly stamped by the Appraising Officer, is attached herewith as Annexure "A" 2.6.3.

It is respectfully submitted that ABB is unable to make any meaningful representation in these proceedings on the basis to the erroneous record provided by the DCPCA, as evidenced hereinabove.

Furthermore, the irreconcilable errors in the DCPCA record go to the root of the Show Cause Notice, rendering it unsustainable in law and in fact.

2.7

The contents of Paragraph 2.3 of the Comments are accepted to the extent that a legible copy of the records was obtained by ABB from the DCPCA on 29 January 2014 and ABB was directed to submit its response to the Show Cause Notice on the basis of this record on 6 February 2014.

2.7.1

Paragraph 2.3 of the Comments also refers an ,lAnnex-B", being the item-wise and GD-wise detail of the breakdown amounting to PKR 11,736,808; however, Annex-B was not attached to the copy of the Comments provided to us.

Legible Copy of the breakdown amounting to PKR 11,736,808 obtained by ABB on 29 January 2014 is attached herewith as Annexure "B"

2.8

In response to Paragraph 2.4 and 2.5 of the Comments, the contents of Paragraph 2.7 hereinabove are repeated.

2.9

The contents of Paragraph 2.6 of the Comments do not merit a response as the Deputy Director has not made any comments.

2.10

In response to Paragraph 2.7 of the Comments, the contents of Paragraph 2.6 hereinabove are repeated. The honourable Collector is invited to kindly compare the DCPCA record (attached herewith as Annexure UB") with the duly stamped Goods Declaration (attached herewith as Annexure "A") and ascertain for himself the erroneous nature of the DCPCA record.

2.11

In response to Paragraph 2.8 of the Comments, the contents of Paragraph 2.6 hereinabove are repeated. For the sake of good order, it is submitted that the record provided by the DCPCA is irreconcilable with the actual Goods Declarations.

2.12

The contents of paragraph 2.9 of the Comments are denied and the contents of paragraph 2.6 hereinabove are repeated.

3.

PRAYER

3.1

Without prejudice to the contents of the Preliminary Statement hereinabove, it is respectfully prayed that the Show Cause Notice be recalled and discharged as continuing the proceedings on the basis of this Show Cause Notice will result in a severe denial of due process

Page 10 of 11

and shall be against all norms of procedural fairness and natural justice.

09.

I have heard both sides, department and respondents. Record of the case and written replies have also been examined. Respondent's written replies to the Show Cause Notice and even re-joinder, on the comments of the department, were not found satisfactory since the respondents failed to effectively their case on factual grounds. Simply not agreeing with the audit observation by the respondent does not carry any weight. Department's observations is correct that serial No. 16 & 21 of SRO 575(l)/2006 dated 05-06-2006 extend benefit to the service sector and industrial concerns on import of machinery, equipment and other capital goods from Customs duty, in excess of 5% and whole of Sales Tax subject to fulfillment of certain conditions including that the imported goods are not listed in the locally manufactured items notified under CGO. Therefore, it is observed that these goods not fall within the ambit of machinery, equipment or other capital goods and accessories, required for manufacture or production of any goods. Moreover, the importer and supplier were found related persons but association charges @ 5% were not included in some consignments. Further goods were included in the list of locally manufactured items notified vide CGO 11/2007 as well. Therefore, charges made in the Contravention Report / Show Cause Notice stand established. The Collectorate shall recover the amount mentioned in the Contravention Report alongwith Rs. 500,000/- fine and Rs. 500,000/- penalty, hereby imposed on the importer. Rs. 200,000/- penalty is imposed on each clearing agent who did not fulfill their responsibilities. The case is disposed off accordingly.

10.

This order consists of (11) pages and each page bears my initial as well as official seal with full signature on the last page.

(SHAHANSHAH HASNAIN) Collector To Respondents:1.

2.

3.

M/s. ABB (Private) Ltd. 4-B, Chamba House, Lane, G.O.R.1, Lahore.

M/s. Expeditor International Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore.

M/s. Exel Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore.

Copy to:1. The Member (Legal), Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad.

2. The Collector, MCC-Appraisement (West), Custom House, Karachi.

3. The Director, Directorate of Post Clearance Audit, Custom House, Nabha Road, Lahore.

4. Guard File.

(SHAHANSHAH HASNAIN) Collector Page 11 of 11