Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 16,163,168,171,181,187,17,129,156(1)(9), 156(1)(64),156(1)(89),156(1)(90),156(2)

Law: Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950

Section: 3

Customs Act (IV of 1969)-- --Ss. 16, 163, 168, 171, 181, 187, 17, 129, 156(1)(9), 156(1)(64), 156(1)(89), 156(1)(90) & 156(2)--Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. 3--SRO No. 566(I)/2005, dated: 06-06-2005-- SRO No. 499(1)12009, dated: 13-06-2009--Powers to restrict imports and exports--Power to search and arrest without warrant--Seizure of things liable to confiscation--When seizure or arrest is made, reason in writing to be given--Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods---Burden of proof as to lawful authority--Transit of goods across Pakistan to a foreign territory--Illegal removal or concealment of goods in transit--Scope--Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation raided a private godown and recovered 150 bags of Indian/Vietnamese origin black tea--Owner of the godown failed to produce any legal import documents in support of its lawful possession therefore, the goods were seized--Adjudicating officer vide order-in-original confiscated the goods and appeal filed there against was dismissed--Contention of appellant was that the show cause notice was barred by time in terms of S. 168(2) of Customs Act, 1969, because the same was issued after a lapse of over four months; that no notice under S. 171, Customs Act, 1969 was issued to the appellant regarding seizure of goods; that the onus of proof was on the department; that since no penalty was imposed, confiscation of goods was illegal' and that the goods were locally procured--Validity--Limitation prescribed under subsection (2) of S.168 of Customs Act, 1969, did not apply to the goods regarding which notification was issued under S.181 of Customs Act, 1969--Black tea appeared at Serial No. 35 of SRO 566(I)/2005, dated: 06-06-2005--Time limitation of two months was not attracted in the case, so the show-cause notice was issued within the stipulated time--Notice was duly served upon the possessor of the goods--Appellant, after issuance of show cause notice, was provided ample opportunity to prove lawful possession of the goods, which he failed to do--Goods in question bore inscription "Transit to Afghanistan", therefore, the onus was squarely upon the appellant in terms…

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