Law:

Section: 156(1), 187, 181, 157(2)

                                      BABAR SATTAR, J.- Through this judgement we will decide the above titled reference as well as the references listed in AnnexA, as they involve common questions of law, which, as framed in the references before us are innumerable, but can be summarized as follows: Whether a vehicle used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of removing smuggled goods could be released in view of SRO No.499 (I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 (“SRO 499”), further amended by SRO No.1619 (I)/2024 dated 03.10.2024 (“SRO 1619”)?   Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the scope and applicability of SRO 499, and SRO 1619 by permitting release of the offending vehicle on payment of redemption fine despite the statutory bar on such release in cases involving exclusive use of vehicle for removing smuggled goods?     Whether in light of section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 (“Act”), the burden of proving lawful authority to transport goods lay upon the person from whose possession the smuggled goods were recovered, and whether in the absence of such proof the offending vehicle was liable to outright confiscation?  In all of these references, the Collector has challenged the orders of the Customs Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) ordering the release of vehicles with or without payment of redemption fine. As a large number of lawyers appeared in these references, which were heard together, we will summarise the arguments made on behalf of the learned counsels for the Customs Department and by the learned counsels for the respondents, instead of repeating the arguments of individual counsels in the interest of economy. It was submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of Collector Customs that the penalty of confiscation arises out of quasi-judicial proceedings initiated under provisions of the Customs Act, which are distinct from a criminal trial administered by the Special Judge under section 185 of the Act, and the…