1989 PLP 3058 (MLD)
Mir AKBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3058 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | Mir AKBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3058 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 3058 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3058 (MLD) (Mir AKBAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Najib Ahmad Choudhry for Petitioner.
- Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.157 & 168--Seizure of truck--Customs Authorities seizing truck were unable to show that two new tyres mounted on that truck were smuggled or were purchased from local market without knowledge of their being smuggled--Seizure of truck in such circumstances, held, was illegal, though Customs Authorities might adjudicate into question whether tyres were smuggled or not.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Respondents. This is a constitutional petition filed by Mir Akbar, petitioner, calling in question the illegal seizure of Bed Ford Truck No. MR-2533.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's Bed Ford Truck No. M R 2533 was seized at Kohat Check Post on 15th February, 1968, as it happened contain two new tyres which were mounted. Being aggrieved by the illegal seizure, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in the High Court, which is now before me for disposal.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Customs Authorities. Unfortunately, the original tile of the case is untraceable and the case per force will have to be dealt with on this basis. In the absence of the file, learned counsel for the respondents is not able to show whether the Bed Ford Truck in Pakistan was doing regular trips across the border or occasional trips. In these circumstances, the case will have to proceed on the basis that it was doing local trips within the country, as it was seized in Kohat. In the absence of the file, the respondents are not able to show that the two new tyres which were mounted on the Bed Ford truck were smuggled tyres, or those which were bona fide purchased from the local market without knowledge of their being smuggled. In these circumstances, the seizure of the Bed Ford truck at least is illegal, though perhaps the Customs may adjudicate into the question whether the two new tyres were smuggled or not and, if so, what action can be taken thereon. It may be stated here that the Bed Ford truck in question was released by the Customs against a bond, just after this writ petition was admitted.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is partly accepted and the seizure of the Bed Ford Truck No. MR-2533 is declared to have been made without lawful authority and is set aside. Since the truck in question is presently with the petitioner, the bond submitted by the petitioner stands discharged. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the respondents from adjudicating into the case as regards the two new tyres which were found in the truck.
5. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-1253/L Petition partly accepted.