Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 164 2020 SLD 164 2020 SCMR 246
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3855 of 2019, decision & hearing Dated: 29-11-2019. (Against the judgment Dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Custom Reference No. 600-P of 2017)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Arbab Shabbir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Nemo

NOOR MUHAMMAD

VS

CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR BENCH

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 156(1)(89),193,194A

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss. 156(1)(89), 193 & 194-A---Smuggled vehicle with tampered chassis number---Seizure and confiscation by Customs authorities---Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), report of---Plea of petitioner (owner of vehicle) that there were two contradictory reports of Forensic Science Laboratory on record, therefore, in the matter of confiscation of his vehicle the fora below should have adopted a more lenient view---Held, that petitioner had ample opportunities to take up all his defences during proceedings before the Deputy Collector (Adjudication), Collector of Customs (Appeals) as well as the Customs Appellate Tribunal, however, before all fora below he failed to rebut the report of the FSL that chassis number of the vehicle had been tampered with---Further the question of two contradictory reports of FSL had been raised as an afterthought in view of the fact that it was never raised before the lower fora---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 196---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Reference to High Court---Barred by eleven months---Condonation of delay---Grounds---Illness of special attorney---Not plausible or convincing ground---After dismissal of his appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner waited for eleven months to file the Customs Reference before the High Court, which was hopelessly barred by time---Application for condonation of delay stated that the entire process was followed up by a special attorney of the petitioner---Said special attorney was allegedly a chronic patient of some disease and was therefore unable to file the Reference within time---Petitioner was unable to explain plausibly why he did not pursue the matter himself and why was he not following up the same---Plea/explanation that petitioner was not available and his special attorney was unwell were neither convincing nor plausible and did not constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay for about eleven months---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against a…
🔒
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