MR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL).--

(1). This judgment disposes of 48 appeals as listed in the title since common issues on law and facts are involved in all these cases. Vehicles were seized by the customs authorities from each of the appellant on different dates and at different places on the ground that those were non duty paid/smuggled. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants on different dates by the adjudicating officers who vide their respective separate orders ordered for the outright confiscation of the vehicles under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 and did not allow the appellants, despite their pleading, to redeem the vehicles on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation alongwith duty/taxes payable under the law in view of the operation of SRO. 1374(I)/98, dated 17.12.98, particularly clause (a) read with table-I of the SRO. Appeals filed against these orders were dismissed by the Tribunal vide its separate orders in the light of its judgment (by a larger bench) dated 22.1.2002 in appeal No. 297/LB/2001. The said judgment of the Tribunal was in itself a sequence to the remand orders dated 10.9.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court in Customs Appeal No. 224/2001 which had been filed against .the Tribunals earlier judgment dated 25.4.2001 in the same case covered under appeal No. 297/LB/2001. The main issue in the said judgment dated 10.9.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court in Customs Appeal No. 224/2001, on which the case was remanded to the Tribunal, was whether the Tribunal, in View of the Provisos to Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969, could allow a relief which the original forum/authority could not give. In the meanwhile the Hon'ble High Court vide another judgment dated 19.9.2001 in Customs Appeal No. 4/98 held that the orders issued by the CBR in exercise of its power under the Provisos to Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 were binding not only on the adjudicating officer but also on the Tribunal since those were to be treated as part of the provisions of Section 181 ibid. Therefore, a relief which could not be allowed by the original adjudicating officer could also not be allowed by the Tribunal. The Full Bench constituted to consider the case covered under appeal No. 297/LB/2001 as a result of the remand order dated 10.9.2001 of the Hon'ble High Court in Customs Appeal No. 224/2001 vide its judgment dated 22.1.2002 in the said Appeal No. 297/LB/2001 held that in the light of Hon'ble High Courts judgment dated 19.9.2001 in Customs Appeal No. 4/98, SRO. 1374(I)/98, dated 17.12.98 was to be read as a part of Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 and was thus binding on the Tribunal as well. Making the said judgment dated 22.1.2002 as the basis, the present appeals were also dismissed by the Tribunal vide its separate judgment in each case. These appellants approached separately the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, some of them at Lahore Bench while others at Multan Bench, pleading that they were not heard and rather the cases were not fixed for hearing on the dates on which the judgments in respect of them were passed. The Hon'ble Lahore High Court vide its judgments in Customs Appeals No. 50/2002 to 61/2002 and 146 to 152, all dated 11.4.2002 and the Multan Bench vide its judgments in Customs Appeals No. 8 to 26 & 30 to 33 dated 5.3.2002 and No. 40 to 45 dated 1.4.2002 remanded these cases to the Tribunal for hearing the appellants and then passing the order on the merits of each case. Hence these proceedings.

2. The cases were heard on different dates, the last being on 16.5.2002 Detailed arguments were addressed by Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate on 3.4.2002 and by the learned D.R. on 29.4.2002. On the last date of hearing held on 16.5.2002 arguments were completed by the learned Counsels of the appellants as well as by the learned D.R. In respect of the appellants, the arguments were mainly addressed by Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate and Mr. Muhammad Akram Nizami and Rana Sardar Ali, Advocates invariably adopted the same. Main points urged by the learned counsels were as under:--

(i) Clause (d) read with Sr. No. 1 of table I and further read with sr. No; 4 of Table-III of SRO 1374(I)/98 dated 17.12.98 excluded vehicles from the ambit of Table-1 of the SRO. In terms of clause (a), goods falling in Table-I of the SRO were not to be allowed option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Since vehicles were excluded from the ambit of Table-I of SRO. 1374(l)/98, the same could be allowed release on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

(ii) That appellants were bona fide purchasers of the vehicles and they had not indulged in any smuggling. The appellants are willing to pay duty/taxes alongwith fine in lieu of confiscation.

(iii) Section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969 required the importers to preserve the relevant record relating to import for 5 years. All these vehicles were very old and much beyond the said period of five years. Therefore, the appellants could not be asked to produce records after the expiry of five years.

(iv) The learned Tribunal did not fall in the category of adjudicating authority as per section 2(a) of the Customs Act, 1969. It also did not figure in the category of officers of customs under section 179. Therefore, the provisos to section 181 ibid read with SRO. 1374(l)/98 did not apply to the Tribunal.

(v) Section 194-C(4) even allowed a Single Member Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal to allow release of the confiscated goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Than a Double Bench or a Full Bench could certainly allow release of confiscated goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

(vi) Vehicles had always been dealt with by the CBR as a separate category and were never grouped with other smuggled goods. Earlier the vehicles were allowed to be released by the CBR on payment of 100% fine in lieu of confiscation and that was the reason that even in SRO. 1374(I)/98 the vehicles had been separately mentioned in Table-III at Sr. No. 4 and were excluded vide Sr. No. 1 of table I of the said SRO dated l7.l2.98. The mention of the date of 15.3.2000 for payment of customs duty/taxes at Sr. No. 4 was only with reference to the fact that CBR had allowed amnesty scheme during the period for regularizing smuggled vehicles on payment of duty/taxes and the intention was that such vehicles on which duty/taxes were paid by 15.3.2000, would suffer "Nil" find while thereafter such vehicles would have to suffer fine in lieu of confiscation.

3. The learned D.R. vehemently opposed contentions of the learned counsel on the following grounds:--

(a) SRO. 1374(I)/98 was binding on the learned Tribunal. Clause (a) of die said SRO read with table I made it abundantly clear that the confiscated vehicles could not be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

(b) Sr. No. 4 of Table-III of SRO. 1374(I)/98 allowed release of such smuggled vehicles on payment of Nil fine if duty/taxes were paid by 15.3.2000. That having passed, these vehicles could not be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

(c) All smuggled vehicles were not excluded from Sr. No. 1 of table I of the said SRO and rather those vehicles were excluded from Sr. No. 1 of table I, duty/taxes in respect of which were paid by 15.3.2000.

(d) Clause (d) of SRO 1374(I)/98 envisaged the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation at Sr. No. 4 of its Table-III only in such cases where duty/taxes had been paid by 15.3.2000

4. We have heard contentions of both the sides and perused the appeal files available before us. As held by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in its judgment dated 19.9.2001 in Customs Appeal No. 4/98 and subsequently by a larger Bench of this Tribunal in its judgment dated 22.1.2002 in- appeal No. 297/LB/2001 that SRO. 1374(I)/98 dated 17.12.98 is to be read with as part of section 181 and was binding on the Tribunal, hence there can be no controversy on this account. The only issue to be decided here is whether the present cases fall, in the ambit of table I and read with clause (a) of SRO. 1374(I)/98 no option can be allowed by the Tribunal to pay fine in lieu of confiscation of the subject vehicles or, as contended by the learned counsels for the appellants, the cases were excluded from the ambit of Table-I and these were covered in Table-III of the said SRO and therefore, the same could be allowed release on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. For the ease of reference relevant portions of SRO. 1374(I)/98 dated 17.12.98 are reproduced below:--

"Notification No. S.R.O. 1374(I)/98, dated 17th December, 1998.--In exercise of the powers conferred by section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969, and in supersession of the Customs General Order No. 19 of 1998, dated the 7th September, 1998, the Central Board of Revenue is pleased to order that-

(a) no option shall be given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of goods or class of goods specified in column (2) of Table-I below except auto parts covered under Serial No. 3 of the said Table, in respect of which import general manifests have been filed on or before the 26th November, 1999, which shall be allowed an option to redeem the same on payment of fine equal to one hundred twenty-five per cent of the ascertained value of the said auto parts;

(b) ,,,,,..

(c) ,,,,,..

(d) the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation shall be such as g specified in column (3) of Table III in respect of the goods specified in column (2) thereof.


TABLE-I

Sr. No. Goods
1. 2.

1. Smuggled goods except goods mentioned in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III below falling under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969.

2. Goods imported in violation of section 15 or notification issued under section 16 of the Customs
Act, 1969.

3. Goods imported into the country in breach of restriction or conditions imposed under chapter 3 of
the prevalent Import Policy Order and goods mentioned in the Negative List of the prevalent Import Policy Order made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (XXXIX of 1950).

TABLE-II

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

TABLE-III

___________________________________________________________
Sr. No. Goods Extent of
Redemption
Fine on the
Ascertained
Value
___________________________________________________________

1. Offending goods imported in the bales 25%
of second hand clothing's imported in
violation of provisions of Imports &
Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (XXXIX
of 1950).

2. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.. NIL

3. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..

4. Cars, 4x4 vehicles, trucks, tankers,
prime movers, trailers, dumpers,
tractors, buses, coaches, vans, wagons
and pickups for which customs duties
and taxes are paid by the 15th March,
2000.

5. Vehicles imported under the Transfer 2%
of Residence /Baggage Scheme in
violation of any condition as envisaged
in the Notification No. SRO 599(I)/93,
dated the 17th July, 1993, for which
clearance permit/no objection
certificate for release has been issued
by the Ministry of Commerce.

6. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..

7. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..

8. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..

A plain reading of the relevant portion of the SRO leads us to frame the following issues:--

(A) Are the clauses (a) and (d) not the regulatory clauses and the tables are to be read/interpreted in the light of these clauses or/are the tables independent of these clauses?

(B) Why the vehicles have been separately placed under Table-III of the SRO if the same were already covered at Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of the SRO?

(C) Was the entry at Sr., No. 4 of Table-III of the SRO valid only up to 15.3.2000 and had it become redundant thereafter?

These issues had been framed during the hearing held on 3.4.2002 and both me learned counsel and the learned D.R. were asked, that in addition to their own pleadings, they must address the Tribunal on the above mentioned issues, As is evident from the contentions of the learned counsel as well as the learned D.R., both have presented their view points in respect of these issues.

5. In the ensuing paras we would discuss the merits of the contentions of each side before giving our findings as to whether the cases of these vehicles fall in the category of Table-I of the SRO and by operation of its clause (a) and therefore, option to redeem the vehicles on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation could riot be allowed or, whether these cases were covered in Table-III of the said SRO and hence the vehicles in question could be allowed release on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Table-I of the SRO in question covers three categories of goods-

(i) smuggled goods;

(ii) goods imported in violation of section 15 or a notification issued under section I6 of the Customs Act, 1969; and

(iii) goods imported into the country in breach of restriction or conditions imposed under chapter 3 of the prevalent Import Policy Order and goods mentioned in the Negative List of the prevalent Import Policy Order. The vehicles in question do not fall in Sr. No. 2 and 3 and the departments case is that these are listed in the notification issued under section 2(s) read with section 156(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 and therefore, being smuggled goods, these are covered at Sr. No. 1 and Table-I of the SRO. However, the said Sr. No. 1 of Table I of the SRO excludes "goods mentioned in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III below". Sr. No, 4 of Table-III of the SRO specifies different types of vehicles like cars, trucks, tankers, buses, coaches, vans, pickups and wagons etc. for which customs duty and taxes are paid by 15 March, 2000 and pitch of fine indicated against the said I entry is "Nil ". Vehicles imported under transfer of residence/baggage scheme, where some violation takes place, are listed at Sr. No. 5 of the said Table-III and the pitch of fine in such cases is indicated as 2%. Clause (d) of the SRO dated 17.12.98 indicates the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of the goods specified in Table-III.

6. In order to analyze the whole issue in its correct perspective it would be necessary to study the developments which have been taking place in SRO 1374(I)/98 in respect of vehicles. In the original SRO there were only three clauses (a), (b), (c) and two tables (Table-l and Table-2). Table-I covered those goods where option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation was not to be allowed after the expiry of the specified date and clauses (b) and (c) dealt with the extent of fine to be levied in lieu of confiscation as specified in Table-II and also those where mis-declaration in respect of value, weight, quantity, origin and description etc. was involved. Said SRO was amended vide SRO. 496(I)/99 dated 22.4.99 where under clause (d) was added, which existed till today and has been re-produced at Para 4 above. Table-III was also added to SRO. 1374(I)/98 vide the said amending SRO dated 22.4.99 In addition to Sr. No.1 and 2 (which related to second hand clothing and stock lot goods), Sr. No. 3 of the newly added Table-III covered "old and used buses, coaches and trucks imported under Non-Reparable Investment Scheme in violation of provisions of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 ..... and for which Import General Manifest has been filed on or before the 2nd April, 1999" and these were allowed to be released on payment of 50% fine in lieu of confiscation. Another amendment vide SRO. 739(I)/99, dated 12.6.99 was made in SRO. 1374(I)/98, dated 17.12.98, which excluded "goods mentioned in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III below" from Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of the SRO. 1374(I)/98. After Sr. No. 3 in Table-III of SRO. 1374(I)/98, Sr. No. 4 was added as under:--

"Trucks, tankers, prime movers, trailers, dumpers, 10%"
tractors, buses and coaches for which customs duties are
paid by the 31st August, 1999.

The said amendment meant that the vehicles mentioned at Sr. No. 4 of Table-III of SRO. 1374(I)/98 were excluded from the category of smuggled goods mentioned at Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of the SRO in question and now those could be released on payment of fine equal to 10% of the ascertained value in lieu of confiscation. Next amendment in SRO. 1374(I)/98 was made vide SRO. 843(I)/99 dated 13.7.99 where under at Sr. No, 4 of Table-III (as quoted above)"coaches, vans and wagons (heading 87.02)" were added and after the said Sr. No. 4, Sr. No. 5 was added to Table-III of the SRO relating to the vehicles imported under the transfer of residence/baggage scheme which were imported in violation of the conditions specified for the importation of such vehicles in its relevant notification SRO. 599(I)/93 dated 17.7.93 and which were to be released on payment of fine equal to 2% of the value in lieu of confiscation. The said entry at Sr. No. 5 of Table-III existed till today and has been reproduced at Para 4 above. Next amendment in SRO. 1374 (I)/98 was made vide SRO. 1014(I)/99 dated 4.9.99 and here amendment at Sr. No. 4 of Table-III, as referred to above, was only in respect of extension of date from 31st August, 1999 to 30th September, 1999. Next amendment in SRO. 1374(I)/98 was made vide SRO. l355(I)/99, dated 16.12.99 and Sr. No. 4 of Table-III was substituted as under:--

"4. Cars, 4x4 vehicles, trucks, tankers, prime NIL"
movers, dumpers, tractors, buses, coaches,
vans and wagons for which customs duties and
taxes are paid by the 31st January, 2000.

Another amendment was made in SRO. 1374(I)/98 vide SRO. 1367(I)/99 dated 22.12.99 and again Sr. No. 4 of Table-III was substituted as under and the said amendment was deemed to have been effective from 16th December, 19991-

"4. Cars, 4x4 vehicles, trucks, tankers, prime NIL"
movers, trailers, dumpers, tractors, buses,
coaches, vans, wagons and pickups for which
customs duties and taxes are paid by the 31st
January, 2000.

Next amendment in SRO. 1374(I)/98 was made vide SRO 21 (I)/2000 dated 24.1.2000 and here the date of 31st Jan. 2000 appearing in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III was extended up to 15th Feb. 2000. Next amendment in SRO. 1374(I)/98 was made vide SRO. 58(1)/2000 dated 15.2.2000 and the date of 15th Feb. 2000 was substituted with 15th March, 2000 in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III of the said SRO. The said entry stands intact till today.

7. The contention of the learned DR is mat the existing entry at Sr. No. 4 of Table-III related only to the amnesty period and those who paid duty/taxes upto 15th March, 2000 availed the amnesty and thereafter this entry was no more relevant. His contention is correct to the extent that such vehicles as specified at Sr. No. 4 of Table-III in respect of which duty/taxes were paid by 15th March, 2000 were not to suffer any fine in lieu of Confiscation. But we do not find ourselves in agreement with this part of his contention that after 15.3.2000, where duty/taxes were not paid, the main entry at Sr. No. 4 has become redundant. The chronological history of addition of Table-III to the SRO 1374(I)/98 in respect of vehicles revealed that for the first time clause (d) was added to the preamble of the said SRO vide SRO. 496(I)/99, dated 22.4.99 alongwith Table-III and at that time Sr. No. 3 allowed only old and used buses, coaches and trucks imported under NRI Scheme in violation of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 and for which IGMs had been filed on or before 22.4.99 and such vehicles were allowed to be released on payment of fine equal to 50% in lieu of confiscation. The amendment made in SRO 1374(I)/98 vide SRO. 739(I)/99 dated 12.6.99 for the first time excluded "goods mentioned in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III" from the category of smuggled goods covered at Sr. No. l of Table-I of SRO. 1374(I)/98 and inserted Sr. No. 4 in Table-III covering trucks, tankers, prime movers, tractors, buses and coaches etc. to be released on payment of fine equal to 10% of value if duty/taxes were paid up to 31.8.99, Thereafter some other categories of vehicles, like coaches, vans and wagons were added in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III and another Sr. No. 5 relating to vehicles imported under transfer of residence/baggage scheme was added to Table-III. Subsequently CBR has been extending dates in respect of payment of duty/taxes by amending Sr. No. 4 of Table-III through different notifications. CBR has been allowing release of vehicles on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation through different instruments. For example, vide letter C. No. 4(34)SSCC/91, dated 2.6.96. It allowed release of smuggled vehicles on payment of fine equal to 100% of value in lieu of confiscation and other vehicles imported in contravention of baggage/TR Rules release was allowed on payment of fine equal to 40% in lieu of confiscation. Vide its letter C.No. 5(7)/L&P/96, dated 27.8.96 the CBR extended the same facility to the vehicles seized on violation of any provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, which had earlier been imported under the Prime Ministers Scheme for Re-vamping of Public Transport one payment of 50% fine in lieu of confiscation. Another scheme of legitimizing the smuggled vehicles on payment of duty/taxes by 31.5.98 was announced by CBR vide its letter C.No. 1/27-AS/97, dated 14th April, 1998. CBR again announced "one time amnesty to smuggled veh1cles" vide its C. No. 1(11) Tar. II/98, dated 17.12.99 wherein detailed procedure for implementing the scheme was announced and legal instrument adopted was the amendment vide SRO. 1355(I)/99, dated 16.12.99 in SRO. 1374(l)/98 when Sr. No. 4 of Table-III was substituted and the pitch of fine which earlier was 10% was made nil, The said date which originally was 31.1.2000 was extended twice, firstly up to 15.2.2000 and lastly to 15.3.2000. We find that vehicles have been specifically dealt with by the CBR separately from Table-I of SRO. 1374(l)/98 since amendment in the said SRO vide SRO 496(I)/99, dated 22499. Vide SRO. 496(I)/99 for the first time clause (d) was added and separate Sr. No. 3 was added in the newly inserted Table-III and specified vehicles were allowed to be released on payment of fine equal to 50% of the value with reference to which the IGMs had been filed by 22nd April, 99. Thereafter Sr. No. 4 in Table-III of SRO 1374(I)/98 was added on 12.6.99 and the specified vehicles were allowed to be released on payment of fine equal to 10% in lieu of confiscation and goods mentioned in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III were excluded for the first time from smuggled category of goods mentioned at Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of the SRO in- question. This exclusion has never been removed thereafter. Similarly Sr. No. 4 of Table-III if it had become redundant after 15.3.2000, has not been deleted. It is also not mentioned at Sr. No. 4 of Table-III that the same would be valid only up to 15.3.2000. Sr. No. 4 of Table-III was in existence since 12.6.99 while the CBR announced its "one time amnesty to smuggled vehicles" on 16.12.99 and issued detailed instructions for its implementation vide C. No. 1(11)/Tar.II/98, dated 17th Dec., 1999. Instead of adopting some other legal instrument the CBR in its own wisdom decided to substitute Sr. No. 4 of Table-III of SRO. 1374(I)/98 vide SRO. 1355(I)/99, dated 16.12.99, which was again substituted vide SRO. 1367(I)/99 dated 22.12.99 prescribing "Nil" fine if duty/taxes were paid-initially by 31.1.2000 and subsequently by 15.2.2000 and , finally by 15.3.2000. The said amnesty scheme got implemented by allowing release of smuggled vehicles only on payment of duty/taxes but without fine. The only change after 15.3.2000 would be that such vehicles cannot be released without payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. However, it is against sanity to presume, what to talk of believing, that thereafter the vehicles reverted back to the category of smuggled goods at Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of SRO. 1374(l)/98 despite the presence of detailed mention of the description of goods in col. 2 of Table-III at Sr. No. 4 and Sr. No. 5, The specific mention of vehicles at Sr. No. 4 and 5 of Table-III of SRO. 1374(I)/98 proved that the vehicles were covered only in Table-III and not in Table-I of SRO. 1374(I)/98 and particularly when the CBR vide its notification SRO. 739(I)/99 dated 12.6.99 had itself excluded goods mentioned in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III from Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of the SRO in question. If the intention of the CBR was the same, as pleaded by the learned DR. then the only course of action was to cause necessary amendment in Sr. No. 1 of Table-I by striking down the exclusion of goods mentioned at Sr. No. 4 of Table-III, and omission of entry at Sr. No. 4 of Table-III. That having not been done we find that the entry "Nil" in col. No. 3 of the goods mentioned in column-2 against Sr. No. 4 of Table-III of SRO. 1374(I)/98 was with reference to the date of 15.3.2000, meaning thereby that if duty/taxes in respect of the vehicles mentioned in col-2 against Sr. No. 4 was paid by 15.3.2000, those would not suffer any fine in lieu of confiscation but after the expiry of the date 15.3.2000, such vehicles are to be allowed release on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, the limit in respect of which has not been specified in the said SRO. It is an established principle that when two interpretations of legal provisions can be adopted, the one favouring the subject is to be preferred. As discussed above, the interpretation adopted by the learned D.R. is in itself full of contradictions e.g. what is the implication of exclusion of "goods mentioned in Sr. No. 4 of Table-III from the smuggled category specified at Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of SRO. 1374(I)/98 upto 15.3.2000 only despite the fact that vehicles remained listed in the list of notified goods in terms of section 2(s) read with section l56(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 during this period as well as thereafter? What is the purpose of keeping the entry at Sr. No. 4- of Table-III after 153.20007 Can the vehicles (even upto 15.3.2000) remain simultaneously included in the list of smuggled goods vide SRO, 491(I)/85 dated, 23.5.1985, issued in terms of section 2(s) read with section 156(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 and excluded from Sr. No. 1 of Table-I (relating to smuggled goods) of SRO. 1374(I)/98 since the amendment made vide SRO. 739(I)/99 dated 12.6.1999? The "one time amnesty to smuggled vehicles" was announced by CBR on 16.12.1999 but the said exclusion of vehicles from the category of smuggled goods at Sr. No. 1 of Table- of SRO. 1374(I)/98 is there since 12.6.1999 (amendment vide SRO 739(I)/99 dated 12.6.1999 refers). This exclusion of vehicles from the category of smuggled goods (Sr. No. 1 of Table-I of SRO. 1374(I)/98) since 12.61999 cannot be linked with the "one, time amnesty to smuggled vehicles" announced by CBR on 16.12.1999. The learned D.R. could not satisfy us on these `issues. On the other hand we find the contentions of the learned counsels for the appellants very logical and just that the vehicles and permanently excluded from the ambit of Sr. No. 1 of able-I of the SRO and the payment of "Nil" fine was only if duty/taxes were paid up to 15.3.2000 but even thereafter the goods mentioned in col. No. 2 against Sr. No. 4 of Table-III would remain in the said table and can be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation and this is exactly what the CBR has itself been doing prior to 16.12.1999. That being so, we order that the vehicles in question shall be released to the respective appellants/owners on payment of fine equal to 100% (hundred per cent) of the assessed duties/taxes in lieu of confiscation and in addition to payment of assessed duties/taxes under the law.

8. All the appeals, mentioned in the title, stand partly accepted and the impugned orders are modified accordingly.