EVERLUCK ENTERPRISES versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION (FBR), ISLAMABAD
Sections 157, 168, 171, 180, 181, 185b (b) and 185c Notification Section R No. 761 (I) / 2012, Dated 21 6 2012 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Petition Special and General Law Enforcement Jurisdiction The declaration goods and registration of FIR scope petitioners were importers who were charged with false declaration and their import goods were confiscated with the option of redemption under section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969. Had also filed an FIR against the applicants, which was under trial at the Criminal Code of Conduct, 1898, so far they are not in conformity with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969. Held that, under the Customs Act 1969, the judicial special judge (customs) applies to a decision or litigation process, as was the case with any other special law, as required by the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, while criminal Invoice may be provided by Code of Conduct, 1898, or another law. Only to the extent provided under this Act, certain provisions were available for the purposes of confiscation, confiscation, auction and release of confiscated goods under the Customs Act, 1969. This law shall prevail. ? The results recorded by the authorities under the general law, Criminal Code of Conduct, 1898, whereby the release of goods was subject to the preparation of any objection certificate by the Special Judge (Customs) of the court, were incorrect in law. And the only thing that kept him apart was this. The prohibited articles did not fall into the category or were smuggled into the same, cannot be considered to be property property. Such goods may be approved by an illegal decision.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
