Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 181,223

Per Munib Akhtar, J; Umar Ata Bandial, CJ. agreeing; Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. also agreeing but with his own reasons. (a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 181 & 223---SRO 574(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 ("SRO 574"), vires of---Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods---Officers of customs to follow Board's orders, etc.---Whether SRO 574 issued by the Federal Board of Revenue in exercise of its powers under section 181 of the Customs Act 1969 ("Act") is ultra vires the proviso to section 223 of the Act---Legislative and administrative orders issued by the Federal Board of Revenue under sections 181 & 223 of the Customs Act 1969---Extent, scope and nature of such orders explained. Per Munib Akhtar, J. (Majority view): The case put forward by the appellants was that SRO 574(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 ("SRO 574") was ultra vires section 223 of the Customs Act, 1969 ('the Act'); that this was so because it unlawfully interfered with the discretion granted by the main part of section 181 of the Act to the concerned officer to "give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the goods such fine as the officer thinks fit"; that the second proviso made the notification issued by the FBR (i.e., SRO, 574) binding thereby wholly depriving the officer of the discretion conferred on him. This, according to the appellants, could not be done by the FBR by reason of section 223 of the Act. The order made by the concerned officer under section 181 is not in exercise of quasi-judicial functions. It is in exercise of a statutory power, and is in the nature of an administrative or executive order. Secondly, if the submissions made by the appellants are accepted that would in effect reduce the second proviso of section 181 to redundancy. This would be so because any exercise of the statutory power thereby conferred would "interfere" with the power conferred on the officer of customs under the main part. The result would be that the power under the second proviso could never be exercised, i.e., would be made redundant. Thirdly, appellants misunderstood section 223. This section is not exclusive to the Act; it is to be found in all fiscal…

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