MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J:- The appellants through instant appeal, have questioned the judgment of Appellate Tribunal dated 31-1-2001 whereby their appeal against the orders of Deputy Collector Customs (Adjudication) dated 29-8-2000 was partially , allowed by directing release of confiscated foreign origin black tea to the appellant/owners on payment of duty and taxes and in addition to that 35% redemption fine on its appraised value was also affixed. The redemption fine of vehicle was also reduced from 50,000 to Rs.40,000.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings of the fora below are against the law and not based on proper appraisal of documentary evidence available on the record. His next contention was that the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are the result of unlawful exercise of jurisdiction as production of triplicate copy of the bill of entry is not the mandatory requirement of law and the record produced by the appellants regarding the remaining 22 bags in the shape of copy of the exchange control could have easily been verified by physical examination in order to correlate with the import documents.

3. As against that, Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that the process of recovery and seizure of the foreign origin black tea was quite in accordance with law as the appellants throughout the process have failed to justify the possession of the foreign origin black tea and as such there was no illegality in the findings of the fora below.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record in the light of submissions made by them.

5. The perusal of the record would reveal that the Customs Mobile Squad Mardan during the course of routine checking on Mardan-Sher Garh Road on 1-4-2000, recovered and seized 44 gunny sacks of foreign origin black tea being transported through a truck bearing registration No.E-1591/Peshawar coming from Peshawar-Charsadda side, on failure of the appellants to produce any valid and legal documentary proof of lawful import. The appellants then were served with a show-cause-notice on 6-4-2000 in reply whereof the appellants claimed it to be legally imported tea by referring to all the bill of entries and other related documents along with receipts of its transportation from-Karachi to Takht Bhai. After hearing the parties, 24 bags were ordered to be released being legally imported and remaining bags were confiscated in favour of the State. The vehicle was also confiscated. However, an option in terms of section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 was given to the I rightful owner to redeem the vehicle against a redemption fine of gs.50,000. Appeal thereagainst was partially allowed by directing the release of the confiscated smuggled goods on payment of duty and taxes as stated above and redemption fine of vehicle was also reduced.

6. Now the only question requiring consideration by this Court would be as to whether .the copies of "exchange control" could be considered as valid documents for making their import as lawful. Instant appeal on 22-5-2001 was also admitted only on one proposition which reads as under:-

"Whether requirement of bill of entry in triplicate is mandatory, is question of law requiring consideration. Admit."

Perusal of the record in this regard would establish the fact that it is the triplicate copy of the bill of entry which is meant for the consumer. The appellants were also required to be in possession of the same to justify their import as lawful, as they produced similar triplicate copies for other 24 bags, released to them being lawfully imported. So, we have no doubt in our mind that the only document which could provide validity to the import of a person is the triplicate copy of bill of entry.

7. The "exchange control" copies produced by the appellants in our view would not serve the purpose as the same are meant for bank record only. Besides the above all, the "exchange control" copies so produced by the appellants cannot be termed as a document tendered in accordance with law as the same were not only the photocopies but were copied from the copies. We are afraid, such copies/documents have no evidentiary value and are inadmissible in evidence. Quite apart from this, the same would have no presumption of correctness as the same were not produced from proper custody. Had it been the case of appellants that the triplicate copies in his possession were lost or destroyed so he produced the other record, then for that purpose too, they were required to produce sufficient further evidence to correlate the entries of original import documents.

8. In this view of the matter, the appellants failed to justify Possession of copies of "exchange control" and the same in the circumstances cannot be held as valid documents to support the version of the appellants. Since no other law point was raised before this Court, hence this appeal being meritless is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.