2006 PLP 2853 (YLR)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the amended petition is that 480 Tolas of gold was handed over by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for manufacturing jewellery. This gold was allegedly seized from the respondent No.1 in an illegal raid conducted on 2-4-1988 by the Customs Authorities headed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner has thereafter run from pillar to post seeking recovery of the said gold. Ultimately he obtained recommendations from the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib dated 25-3-1991 to the effect that the grievance requires investigation by the F.I.A. as well as superior authorities in the C.B.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner complains against inaction by the said authorities in complying with the recommendations by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib. He further submits that the remedies under the Customs Act, 1969 against the illegal raid alleged by him could not be availed because the Customs Authorities deny that any raid was ever conducted. Therefore, the application dated 26-6-1988 by the petitioner to the Collector of Customs, respondent No.5 was the only available remedy that was adopted by the petitioner in order to seek relief. Be that as it may, learned counsel submits that the recommendations of the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib made in the case also remain uncomplied.

2. The officer of the Customs Department has referred to the parawise comments filed in this matter. These parawise comments contain a letter issued by the petitioner dated 30-4-1988 in favour of the respondent No.1 acknowledging receipt of the jewellery manufactured from the gold supplied by the petitioner. The officer denies any raid having been conducted by the Customs Authorities and relies upon the said document to state that the dispute if any, is between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The petitioner is admittedly not a witness to the alleged raid and relies solely upon a statement of the respondent No.1, who has in turn given a receipt showing the return of the gold in question to the petitioner. As such, the complaint made by the petitioner is contradicted by the respondent No.1. The petitioner, who is present in person, submits that his signatures on the said document are genuine but he had signed the paper in blank.

3. Regardless of his bona fides or the loss that the petitioner may have suffered, this Court acts on the basis of record which presently does not establish the allegation made by him. The documents on record produced along with the parawise comments exonerate the Customs Authorities of any complicity in the acts alleged against them. The officer present state that enquiry proceedings were also conducted by the Investigation and Prosecution Branch of the Customs Department, Customs House, Karachi, and also in the Collectorate of Customs, Karachi, and Collectorate of Customs, Lahore. Parawise comments, however, do not present any document showing the outcome of the said inquiries. It is apparent that the Customs Authorities have not in this respect bothered to conduct the inquiry ordered by the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib because no action has so far been reported to the petitioner.

4. Although no prima facie basis for interference on the merits is presently made out before this Court, however, the respondent-Customs Authorities are directed to report the findings of their enquiry in writing to the petitioner who has a right to have his grievance answered. The grounds for no relief being extended to him must be conveyed to him for his further action, if so advised.

5. With the foregoing observations this petition is disposed of with no relief on merits but in terms of the direction given to the Customs Authorities. S.A.K./M-318/L Order accordingly_