Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑205 of 1986, decided on 26th August, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 156‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Confiscation of imported goods‑‑Order of‑‑Question of fact‑‑Determination of‑ Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Question of bona fide mistake regarding imported goods, being a question of fact for the determination of which Customs Authorities were correct forum‑‑Order of Customs Authorities confiscating imported goods on ground that it was not case of bona fide mistake, but importer had made wrong declaration in respect of imported goods as well as their price, held, could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

‑‑‑S. 25‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Import of goods‑ Determination of price‑‑Objection to‑‑Constitutional petition‑ Maintainability of‑‑Importer neither adduced any evidence to prove that price of imported goods was not determined by Customs Authorities in accordance with provisions of S. 25 nor challenged order of Authorities in appeal‑‑Constitutional petition against order of Customs Authorities determining price of imported goods, held, was without merits and was liable to be dismissed.

Abdul Sattar Pinger for Petitioner. M. Umer Qureshi for Respondents.

MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑The petitioner had declared in the Bill of Entry filed by him that the goods imported by him were Pthalic Anhyrlid which on examination by the Customs Authorities was found to be saccharine. The price of the goods was declared by the petitioner at Rs.52, 420 at the rate of exchange of Rs. 12.84 per U.S. dollar. On examination the Customs authorities found the goods to be saccharine and its value was found to be U.S 3,400 per metric ton. Show‑cause notice to this effect was given to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the same and pleaded that it was by mistake that the Bill of Entry had been filed for the chemicals instead of saccharine. In fact the submission was that the exporter from Korea had by mistake sent saccharine instead of chemicals. The department did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and held that the petitioner had made mis-declaration in respect of the item of goods as well as their price and therefore they confiscated the goods under section 156 of the Customs Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.S. Pinger has submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner. We do not agree with the submission as the show‑cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2‑5‑1983 and the same is quite clear in its contents.

3. The learned counsel further submitted that it was a case of bona fide mistake. However the question of bona fide mistake is a question of fact of which the Customs Authorities are the correct forum and the Customs authorities have found that it was not a case of bona fide mistake and, therefore, we cannot interfere on that ground. If it was the case of bona fide mistake the petitioner should have sought. clemency from the Government itself.

4. The counsel then pleaded that the price has not been determined in accordance with section 25 of the Customs Act. We find from the show cause notice that the petitioner had been informed that on the basis of evidence available on record fair price of the article was being determined at 3,400 per metric ton. If the petitioner had an evidence' with him to show that the price of saccharine in Korea at the relevant' time was not 4,000 per metric ton, then he should have produced the said evidence but he has not done so. He did not even challenge the price in appeal. In these circumstances this petition is found to be without merits and is hereby dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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