Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 133 of 1980, decided on 4th March, 1985.

(Against the judgment and order dated 19th November, 1979 of the Lahore High Court Lahore in W.P. No. 7015 of 1979).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)‑‑Seizure/ confiscation of ornaments on person of lady passenger arriving from abroad by Customs authorities‑‑Challenged in constitutional petition‑‑Plea that no attempt was made to conceal ornaments which petitioner was wearing and were visible, repelled‑‑Ornaments being abnormally of heavy weight, not declared but found on personal search, reflected upon Petitioner's bona fides‑‑High Court held justified in not interfering in constitutional jurisdiction with order of departmental authority‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Malik Muhammad Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hameed Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19‑11‑1979 whereby a constitutional petition filed by her challenging the seizure of gold ornaments weighing 46 Tolas was dismissed in limine.

2. On the 8th of February, 1976 the petitioner alongwith her husband arrived at the Lahore Airport by a PIA flight coming from Dubai. She was holding a Pakistani passport. Her baggage was checked and nothing incriminating was found. On her personal search two gold bangles and three golden rings were found on her person weighing 46 Tolas in all whereupon a case was registered against her under Customs Act with the Police Station, Lahore Cantonment. The golden articles were detained and a show‑cause notice was served on her by the Assistant Collector and it mentioned that during the course of examination the petitioner was suspected by her movements of carrying some contraband goods. She was asked to declare if she had any contraband goods. To this she replied in the negative. She was, thereafter subjected to personal search by a Lady Inspector with the permission of the Assistant Collector and it was on her personal search that 46 Tolas to crude gold in the form of two Karas and three finger rings were found in her possession and were seized. She was by a show‑cause notice accused of violating State Bank of Pakistan SRO No. FE 29/49, dated 5‑11‑1949 issued under section 8(2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and SRO No. 920 (1) 73, dated 25‑6‑1973 issued under section 3(1) of the Import & Export Control Act, 1950. Any contravention of the provisions of the said notification being an offence under section 16 of Customs Act; 1969 is punishable under section 156(1) sub‑clause (9)(89) of the Customs Act, 1969, she was asked to show‑cause within ten days why penal action under Customs Law should not be taken against her. In response to show‑cause notice her plea was that the ornaments were visible and no attempt was made to conceal them. She asked for the permission to re‑export them under section 142 of the Customs Act. This plea was disposed of by the Assistant Collector on 10‑5‑1976 with the following observations:‑

"Taking all the circumstances in view I find that the argument of the counsel are not tenable. The report of the seizing officer is quite clear op the point that the goods were concealed on the person of Mst. Khadija Begum and it was only after a personal search had been ordered that 46 Tolas gold in crude form was recovered. The applicability of section 142 in this case is not attracted as an option can be exercised only where the passenger makes a clear declaration and an intention to re‑export any article imported in breach of any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force. In this case gold in crude form which was concealed on her person and in respect of which a seizure report has been submitted, cannot be said to be temporarily deposited in terms of afore-mentioned section. It is accordingly ordered that the goods be confiscated out‑right in favour of the Government."

Her appeal to the Collector and a revision to the Board of Revenue were dismissed.

3. In this background she instituted a constitutional petition challenging the seizure and confiscation. A learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the constitutional petition observing that the petitioner in her statement specifically stated that she did not declare the gold which was seized subsequently.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that no attempt to conceal the ornaments was made that she was wearing them and they were visible and in such a circumstance the confiscation of the goods was not justified under the law.

5. As already indicated a survey of the proceedings in the department shows that although the ornaments were on the person of the petitioner but she did not declare them. It was only on her personal search and after her entire baggage had been searched that the gold ornaments which were abnormally of heavy weight were found out. All this reflects on the pleas of the petitioner and also on her bona fides. In the circumstances, we consider that the High Court rightly did not interfere in the constitutional jurisdiction with the order of the departmental authority. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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