| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1225 2026 SLD 1225 |
Islamabad High Court
Custom Reference No. 24/2025
Presented By: (SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ) JUDGE (BABAR SATTAR) JUDGE
APPLICANTS BY: Ms. Shamin Choudhry, Advocate. RESPONDENTS BY: Mr. Touqeer Akram, Advocate. DATE OF DECISION: 19.02.2026.
Custom Reference No. 24/2025
Presented By: (SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ) JUDGE (BABAR SATTAR) JUDGE
APPLICANTS BY: Ms. Shamin Choudhry, Advocate. RESPONDENTS BY: Mr. Touqeer Akram, Advocate. DATE OF DECISION: 19.02.2026.
Collector of Customs (Enforcement), Islamabad, & others
VS
. Abdul Nafay & another
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 2(s)(ii)
Summary The High Court dismissed the reference filed by the Customs Department against the Tribunal’s decision. It held that the Customs Appellate Tribunal had made a factual determination that the value of the seized goods (including Monosodium Glutamate, skim milk powder, and shopping bags) was below Rs. 500,000, and therefore did not fall within the definition of “smuggled goods” under the law. Since the Tribunal’s findings were factual and not shown to be perverse or contrary to record, the High Court ruled that no question of law arose, making the reference incompetent. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order releasing the goods was upheld. Tagline No reference lies where Tribunal’s findings are factual and no question of law arises ORDER; BABAR SATTAR, J.- This reference arises from a judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) dated 06.02.2025. The questions framed for our consideration, as documented in order dated 20.10.2025, were as follows: Whether the Appellate Tribunal took into consideration Import Policy Order, 2022, according to which Monosodium Glutamate (China salt) is banned item? Whether the learned appellate tribunal has not erred in making party at the Tribunal level where parties had not come forward either at the seizure stage or at the adjudication stage? In addition to this to the parties came forward at the Tribunal stage got managed, making this a case of dimension of liability? Whether the learned Tribunal has not erred in releasing banned goods in absence of any evidence of import or any other legal document where the documents produced at this later stage not a afterthought the parties produced only skim milk receipts only whereas no other receipts of other goods was produced at the tribunal level? The learned counsel for the Customs Department submitted that the Tribunal had ordered the release of Monosodium Glutamate, which was a banned item. She further submitted that the Tribunal had also ordered the release of Skim Milk Powder and shopping bags on the basis of receipts filed by the…