Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1961, decided on 4th June 1962.
(On appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th April 1960, in Writ Petition No. 450 of 1959 (Lahore) and Writ Petition No. 136 of 1959 (Peshawar)).
S. 177‑A read with S. 167 (81)‑Goods purchased in open market where customs and import restrictions were not enforced as matter of policy‑When sub ject to statutory presumption‑Presumption about "goods", not pre sumption about "person" possessing them‑How presumption can properly be inferred‑Section 177‑A explained in detail‑Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. 3 (1)‑Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170‑Certiorari‑[Messrs S. A. Haroon and others v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi and another P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 177 distinguished.
A presumption with respect to the existence of certain facts can, under section 177‑A, Sea Customs Act, 1878 arises only if circumstances exist justifying a reasonable belief in the existence of those facts so that the practical effect of the section is only this that if there is prima facie evidence of certain facts then those facts are to be presumed to exist.
Section 177‑A requires reasonable belief on the part of the person seizing the goods that an act to defraud the Government of duty has been committed. If a person purchases goods in an ordinary market then in the absence of any suspicious circum stances or some definite facts leading to that Inference the customs officer Is not entitled to a reasonable belief that the Government has been defrauded of the duty Payable on the goods. The ordinary method of the import of goods from outside into Pakistan is that they come through the Customs barrier and the duty payable is in fact paid. The presumption, therefore, with respect to any goods which may be sold in the open market in the absence of an indication to the contrary would be that duty has been paid on them.
Where goods were being sold by shopkeepers in a serai which was owned by the Government and which the Government had rented out to those shopkeepers. As a matter of policy, the Customs Officers took no action against the shopkeepers although it
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer