Case Details

Citation(s)
1959 SLG 163 1959 SLD 163 1959 PLD 25
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1958, decision dated: 24th November 1958
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMED AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ
Shah Jamil Alam, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (Waheed Farooqi Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed by S. Zahir Abbas, Attorney for
Respondents

THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

VS

SARDAR ALI and others

Law: Sea Customs Act, 1878

Section: 167

(a) Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878)--S. 167 (8) -Does not penalise possession simpliciter of banned goods. (b) Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) [as amended by Customs Acts (Amendment) Ordinance (111 of 1954), S. 167 (81)] ----read with S. 177-A-Possession simpliciter of banned goods indictable-Date of import of goods not relevant. Section 177-A of the Sea Customs Act lays down a procedural rule and it is well settled that any change in procedure would affect pending actions or proceedings. The date of acquisition of goods is not relevant to the question of culpability under the amended section 167. The words of item 81 are unambiguous and expressly make goods of the relevant kind liable to confiscation and their possession an offence from the date of the amendment. No question of giving retros­pective effect to such a provision arises. From the date of promulgation of the Ordinance, anyone who retained possession of such goods howsoever or whenever they might have been acquired, could do so at his peril. (c) Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) [as amended by Customs Acts (Amendment) Ordinance (III of 1954)], S. 167(81) read with S. 177-A-Person proceeded against entitled to be heard and to produce his defence. In view of the new S. 177-A placing a definite onus on the possessor of the relevant type of goods, a person proceeded against under S. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act is entitled to an opport­unity of not only being heard but of adducing evidence, if necessary, to discharge that onus. Where Customs Officers and the Central Board of Revenue disposed of the case on the basis only of a one-sided official inquiry and reports, and on the initial written explanation of the possessor of goods Held, that prejudicial action could not be taken in a matter touching valuable rights in property and the personal liberty of the subject on the basis of such material. The failure of the Customs Collector to follow the correct procedure envisaged by the amended law vitiated his order. The right of appeal given by section 188 of the Act to a person aggrieved by a decision or order passed by an officer of Customs, would become illusory if the appeal could be disposed of merely…
🔒
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