| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1195 2025 SLD 1195 = 2025 SCMR 684 = 2025 PTD 608 = 2025 PTCL 425 = (2025) 131 TAX 393 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 2330 of 2023, decided on 12th September, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 15.02.2024 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Customs Reference No.36-P of 2021). Date of hearing: 12th September, 2024.
PRESENT: MUNIB AKHTAR, ATHAR MINALLAH AND SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JJ
Naveed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via video link from Peshawar). Shahid Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (via video link from Peshawar).
Civil Petition No. 2330 of 2023, decided on 12th September, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 15.02.2024 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Customs Reference No.36-P of 2021). Date of hearing: 12th September, 2024.
PRESENT: MUNIB AKHTAR, ATHAR MINALLAH AND SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JJ
Naveed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via video link from Peshawar). Shahid Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (via video link from Peshawar).
BASHIR AHMAD ---PETITIONER
VS
DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS), FBR, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER ---RESPONDENTS
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 17,181,194-A,196
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.17, 181, 194-A & 196---Notification SRO 499 (I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Transporting smuggled goods---Confiscation of vehicle---Option to pay fine---Aggrieved person---Scope---Petitioner was driver of vehicle which was confiscated by authorities for transporting smuggled goods---Owner of vehicle did not come forward, instead the petitioner sought release of vehicle against payment of fine---Validity---Vehicle was seized in year 2020 and it was outrightly confiscated---Before insertion of proviso to Section 157(2) of Customs Act, 1969 it remained effective for a short period and was omitted through Finance Act, 2022---Proviso inserted in section 157 of Customs Act, 1969 generally explained the extent of confiscation and did not in any manner affect, limit or interfere with the powers conferred on Federal Board of Revenue under Section 181 of Customs Act, 1969---In the context of giving an option to release goods in lieu of payment of fine, provisions of Sections 157 and 181 were independent of each other and the former could not be construed as having an overriding effect on the latter---Inserted and then omitted proviso was not relevant or attracted in the matter, as the vehicle was found carrying smuggled goods and was used exclusively for transportation thereof, which was covered under clause (b) of Preamble to Notification SRO 499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009 and the option contemplated under section 181 of Customs Act, 1969 could not have been given for its release---Aggrieved person is the one whose legal right have been invaded, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected---Expression aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, denial of some personal pecuniary or property rights, or imposition upon a party for burden or obligation---Statutory right of appeal provided under Section 194A of Customs Act, 1969 is confined to an aggrieved person or an officer of customs---Petitioner was not owner of vehicle, nor had the latter sought benefit under section 181 of Customs Act, 1969---Petitioner was neither authorized by nor was acting as a lawful attorney on behalf…