Find a Lawyer

C.A. No.198/LB of 2005, decided on 7th February, 2009.

----Ss. 2(16) & 156(1)89---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.550---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.10---Smuggling---Punishment for offence---Cut of chassis number and welded or change of engine number of vehicle---Tussle between the parties quarrelling---Confiscation of car by the customs authorities---Validity---If, any vehicle was in a genuine condition and was brought into country without paying the taxes then offence of smuggling would take place---Contravention of Imports and Exports Act, 1950 could be said as having taken place, but if the chassis number was cut and welded or engine number was changed then it was for the Motor Registration Authorities to give any registration number exhibit to such a composed unit---Customs authorities should not have jumped into the tussle finding the parties quarrelling-Appellate Tribunal could not provide to the appellant the crunches to regain the possession--Customs Authorities had seized the vehicle--Even on criminal side the ultimate authority was the Civil Court to decide the title of a stolen or suspected moveable property under S.525-A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---In the specific circumstances, under S.10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a person entitled to the possession of the specific movable property may recover the same in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure---Appellant had nowhere in the appeal or in any application made to any authority had mentioned that he had paid any price to the respondent under any receipt---Appeal was partly accepted and the order was set aside to the extent the seizure was unlawful, however, the customs authorities will deliver the car seized by them to any person who produces any decree of the Civil Court declaring title or possessor of rights. Syed Mohsin Hamdani for Appellant. Omer Din, Inspector for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th January, 2009.

The appellant has assailed, in this appeal, the Order-in-Original No.154 of 2003, dated 23-2-2004, passed by the learned Additional Collector (Adjudication). 2. Earlier, the appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 1011/04, but withdrew the same on 10-2-2005 and the Hon"ble Lahore High Court, Lahore disposed of the writ petition as having been withdrawn and observed "however, the learned Tribunal will sympathetically consider his petition for condonation of delay in accordance with law". The appeal was time-barred however was admitted for regular hearing by my learned predecessor vide his order, dated 29-3-2005. The delay appeared to have been condoned or is hereby condoned. 3. The case set up by the appellant in the memo. of appeal is that he had purchased a Toyota Corolla Car bearing Registration No. VRF-73, chassis No.EE-90-0202829, Engine No.2E-1711259, capacity 1295 cc, Model 1988, colour white in consideration of Rs.5,00,000 from Muhammad Omer Fayyaz, respondent No.4 Rs.4,80,000 were to be paid after obtaining registration book from the respondent No.4, who had shown letter No.MDPT-VAC-3/32/2000, dated 2-2-2000 to the petitioner and told that the customs of the said car was duly paid and cleared. It was pertinent to mention that just opposite the engine number of the car, the word "tampered" was also found written. The appellant got doubtful and made an application, dated 2-7-2003 before the customs authorities for the issuance of the certificate regarding verification of the clearance of the customs duty of the said vehicle. The customs authorities issued a certificate, dated 2-7-2003. It was further worth-mentioning that just opposite the chassis number of the said car the words "front shield changed" were also written. In the certificate, it was mentioned that the front shield was changed i.e. chassis frame cut and welded. Thereafter the respondent No.4 delivered a duplicate copy of the Registration Book to the appellant on 23-5-2003. The car remained in possession of the appellant. On 16-7-2003, the police of Saddar Vehari took the vehicle into possession under section 550, Cr.P.C. vide their Rapat No.18. In the opinion of the examiner the chassis number before and after chemical examination remained EE-90-0202829. The appellant made an application for superdari to the Illaqa Magistrate on 3-10-2003 and the learned Magistrate granted the superdari of the vehicle No.VRF-73 against a surety deposit of Rs.4,00,000. The car was delivered to the appellant vide Rapat No.6, dated 4-10-2003 by the police. When the car was in the custody of the police, the respondent No.4 instituted a Civil Suit No. 247 on 25-7-2003, against the appellant and the S.H.O. praying that the said car belonged to him. The temporary injunction was also sought. The Civil Court passed an order of interim injunction and it was also mentioned in the said order that the car was standing outside the Court. The customs authorities thereafter snatched the car from the possession of the appellant apparently under section 2(16) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3 of the Imports and Exports Act, 1950 and under section 156(1)89 of the Customs Act, 1969. A Case No.111/03 was registered regarding the car. It is submitted that once the appellant had got the car on superdari, he could not be vexed twice for the same offence. The seizure was illegal. The customs authorities had not got the order of the Magistrate set aside and he seized the vehicle. The appellant prayed that the car, with the above said particulars, be released in his favour. 4. The department filed the comments. It has been submitted that the customs authorities had not taken the possession of the car from the appellant rather the car was being driven and was just signalled to stop, but the driver accelerated the vehicle so as to escape from the customs authorities. The staff kept chasing the vehicle but it became out of sight due to over speed. The said vehicle was seen parked along the roadside at about 15-KM away from Vehari to Multan. The car was taken into possession. The Chassis number was E-90-0202829, Engine number 1789696 and Model 1988. During Investigation Mr. Omer Fayyaz Bhutta had appeared and stated that he had got the car cleared from the customs authorities under the amnesty scheme after paying due taxes and duties. The Chassis number was EE-90-0202829, Registration No.VRF-73. It was got registered with the Motor Registration Authority, Vehari. Thereafter the appellant had fabricated a car with the same registration number and the chassis number. The vehicle had lawfully been seized. 5. Arguments were heard. The learned counsel argued that in fact a relative of the respondent No.4 was an officer of the Customs Dept. and every thing was being done at his behest. The respondent No.4 was himself keeping a tampered car and genuine car sold to the appellant had been got confiscated by the customs authorities. 6. The learned Inspector defends the impugned order. 7. I have gone through the voluminous file. The respondent No.4 had also appeared before any learned predecessor and had made a statement that the appellant had fabricated a car with the same registration number and he had nothing to do with that car. 8. The appellant has submitted in the appeal that he had purchased a car Registration No.VRF-73, Chassis number EE-90-0202829, Engine No.2E-1711259, capacity 1295cc and model 1988. The Customs Authorities vide letter No.MDPT/VAC-14/32/00, dated 2-2-2000 (annexure-A), had cleared this car against duties and taxes. In the duplicate registration book, the Engine number 2E-1711259 had been scored of and the engine had been written IC-1663018, capacity 1295 cc had been scored of and substituted with 1800cc. The police had taken into possession a car under section 50, Cr.P.C. vide a Rapat No.18, dated 16-7-2003 (annexure-E), in which the chassis number is the same, but Engine number was 01789698. The respondent No.4, had instituted a civil suit regarding Registration No.VRF-73, Chassis number EE-90-0202829 and engine No. 1663018 (annexure-H), the customs authorities in their Case No.111/03 had seized the car with the "same registration number and chassis number, but the Engine number was 1789696. I find that any case of smuggling could to be made out. If, any vehicle is in a genuine condition and is brought into country without paying the taxes then offence of smuggling contravention of Imports and Exports Act could be said as has taken place, but if the chassis number is cut and welded or engine number is changed then it was for the Motor Registration Authorities to give any registration number/exhibit to such a compromise unit. The customs authorities should not have jumped into the tussle finding the parties quarrelling. However, I find that this Tribunal could not provide to the appellant the crunches to regain the possession. The customs authorities had seized a car VRF-73, Chassis number EE-90-0202829, Engine number 1789696. Even on criminal side the ultimate authority was the Civil Court to decide the title of a stolen or suspected moveable property under section 525-A(3) of the Cr.P.C. In the specific circumstances, under section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, a person entitled to the possession of the specific movable property may recover the same in the manner prescribed by the Court of Civil Procedure. The appellant has no where in the appeal or in any application made to any authority had mentioned that he had paid any price to the respondent No.4 under any receipt. Resultantly, the appeal is partly accepted and the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the seizure was unlawful. However, the customs authorities will deliver the car seized by them to any person who produces any decree of the Civil Court declaring title or possessor rights. C.M.A./70/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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