Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.60/R of 1983, decided on 30th January, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23‑1‑1983, passed in Writ Petition No.516 of 1982).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.l6 read with Import and Exports (Control), Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)‑‑Confiscation of goods, illegally brought to Pakistan‑‑Finding and action of Custom Authorities and order of High Court dismissing writ petition of appellant found to be unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th January, 1984.

.‑‑ Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑1‑1983 passed in W.P. No. 516 of 1982.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Israr Hussain petitioner had purchased betelnuts in an auction held by the Custom Department and, therefore, no exception can be taken to the transporta tion of these betelnuts by the petitioner during the course of which the betelnuts were seized by the said Department. He relied on two receipts whereby the goods in question were allegedly purchased by him. He also contended that the learned High Court Judge was bound by law to examine the extent of jurisdiction of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and also to examine whether they had failed to exercise their jurisdiction or not; and that the High Court should have set aside the decisions of respondents specially when the same were prima facie based on wrong presumptions.

3. The petitioner claimed to be an established dealer in Supari (betelnuts) and has his principal seat of business in Rawalpindi and he mostly deals in commodities purchased in auctions held by the Customs Department for the sale of confiscated betelnuts and kattha etc.; that on 4‑8‑1980, according to the petitioner an auction was held by the Customs Department at their Rawalpindi warehouse through Messrs G. Mohyuddin and Sons approved Government auctioneers and the petitioner, being the highest bidder, purchased a consignment of 1,227 k.g. betelnuts. On 26‑4‑1981 another auction was held in which the petitioner purchased 716 k.g of betelnuts and similarly in an auction held at Lahore on 18‑6‑1981 he purchased various quantities of betelnuts for which receipts here issued to him by the auctioners and the auction Erice was deposited in the Bank for which the petitioner is in possession of Receipted Challans. On 5‑9‑1981 when the betelnuts were being transported the truck was intercepted near the Customs Post at P.S. Rawat. The petitioner, on learning about the seizure of the betelnuts, produced the necessary documents showing legal possession of the consignment to the Deputy Collector, Land Customs, Rawalpindi. Later on, a show‑cause notice was received by the petitioner issued under the provisions of Customs Act, 1969 calling upon him to show cause as to why the goods and the truck be not confiscated as the betelnuts were being brought to Pakistan in contravention of section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950.

4. The Deputy Collector rejected the plea of the petitioner and ordered confiscation of the betelnuts. The truck was, however, allowed to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 1,000 as penalty vide order, dated 13‑2‑1982. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Collector on 8‑6‑1982 and revision before the Board of Revenue was also rejected vide order; dated 1‑11‑1982. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Constitu tion Petition No. 516/82 which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

5. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and we agree with the finding of the Customs authorities and uphold the order of the learned High Court Judge. Perusal of the recovery would show that the date and other particulars of the purchase Receipt No. 374 have been covered over with overwriting and as such, was rightly rejected. As regards Receipt No. 30026, dated 18‑6‑1981 issue at Lahore whereas the goods in question were being transported from Rawalpindi to Lahore and there was no evidence to show that these were the same betelnuts which were originally purchased in Lahore and were again being transported from Rawalpindi to Lahore. We find no merit in this petition and it calls for no interference with the impugned order. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.

S.Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.