Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1323 2016 SLD 1323 2016 PTCL 643 2018 PTD 982

C. A. Nos. 135/LB/2014 & 136/LB/2014, decided on 25th April, 2015. CUSTOMS ACT, 1969 (IV OF 1969)
MR. OMAR ARSHAD HAKEEM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).
Appellants by: Mr. M. Akram Nizami, Advocate.
Respondents by: Mr. Jamshed Hussain, Inspector.

M/s. State Corporation Customs Clearing Agents, Lahore.

VS

Superintendent of Customs, DFGS, Thokar Niaz Baig, Lahore and another.

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 32,77,156(1),156(14)

Sections 32, 77, 156(1), 156(14) In absence of any proof of assistance in aiding or abetting commission of offence under section 32, the penal consequences against clearing agent cannot be set in motion:------- The question to be addressed in the instant case is whether penalty can be imposed on clearing agent in strict and absolute terms as a necessary consequence of mis-declaration in absence of any proof of his assistance in aiding or abetting commission of offence under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969? In order to bring actions of appellant within folds of penal consequences the presence of requirement of section 32 of the Act have to be considered before proceeding any further. The penal action under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 cannot be set into motion against the appellant in presence of clear findings of Collector Appeals in his order wherein he has exonerated the appellant. Before the penal consequence of criminal provisions could be set into motion, it has to be confirmed if the act in question (actus reus) was laced with presence of criminal intent (mensrea). -There is little doubt that the words "untrue" and "knowledge" and having "reasons to believe" appearing in section 32 clearly point out that the same does not create a strict liability offense (PLD 1967 SC 1). Thus, wherever, legislature introduces the knowledge or intention actuating the commission of the offence as an essential element, it is imperative that before the penal consequence of criminal provisions could be set into motion, it has to be confirmed if the act in question (actus reus) was laced with presence of criminal intent (mensrea). The words "untrue" and "knowledge" and having "reasons to believe" appearing in section 32 create a strict liability. THIS JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY: MR. OMAR ARSHAD HAKEEM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL):------- (1). This judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals filed against a composite order in appeal No. 167-168/2014 passed by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals), Lahore as common questions of law and facts arise in these cases. 2. A perusal of record shows that the subject appeals were the jurisdiction of Single Bench therefore…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492