2001CLC7 (PLP)
ABID HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)
| Citation | 2001CLC7 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | ABID HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001CLC7 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001CLC7 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001CLC7 (PLP) (ABID HUSSAIN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahryar Sheikh for Petitioners.
- A. Karim Malik for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2(kk)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑ Detention of vehicle‑‑‑Investigation against petitioner had not been completed, evidence had not been finally collected to conclude that custom duty had been evaded or that relevant law had been violated nor any matter had been referred for adjudication‑‑‑Restraint against use of vehicle in question, could not be justified especially when petitioners had undertaken not to create any charge against said vehicle or to dispose of the same and also to produce same as and when required by Customs Authorities‑‑ Petitioners, in view of the undertaking, were permitted to use vehicle pending investigation and adjudication of the case‑‑‑Petitioners would be bound by their undertaking to produce vehicle as and when required by Customs Authorities and would also not create any charge against the vehicle nor would dispose of the same during pendency of proceedings against them.
Judgment & Decree
A. Karim Malik for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1999. Petitioners in this Constitutional petition, are aggrieved by the detention of vehicle by respondent No.2. It is claimed that the vehicle is lawfully owned by petitioners Nos.2 to 5 which has been kept under detention and the petitioners have been restrained from using the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any show cause notice has been issued nor any adjudication has been made against the petitioners and the matter is still at investigation stage and, therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to make use of the vehicle. The learned counsel, with the instructions from the petitioners, undertake that the petitioners will not dispose of the vehicle nor will create charge thereagainst and will produce same before the Customs Authorities, if as a result of ultimate adjudication, the vehicle is required.
3. Mr. Abid Hussain, Assistant Collector, Customs Department, submits that the investigation is in progress and the same has not so far been completed. Further submits that the show‑cause notice will be issued if the findings are recorded against the petitioner in consequence of the investigation and the matter is referred for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that under section 2(KK) of the Customs Act, the Customs Authority while issuing detention, memo. can restrain the disposal or user of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioner undertake, to produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondents, then possibly, the user of vehicle will not be objected to.
4. After hearing of learned counsel for the parties and also the Assistant Collector of Customs Department it is observed that at present; the investigation has not been completed, evidence has not been finally collected to conclude that the Custom duties have been evaded or that the custom laws have been violated nor any matter has been referred for adjudication. This being so, the restraint against user of the vehicle, may not be justified, moreso when the petitioners undertake not to create any charge against the vehicle or to dispose it of and also to produce it as and when required by the Customs Authorities.
5. In view of the undertaking given before this Court the petitioners are permitted to use the vehicle, pending investigation and adjudication of case against them. However, they shall be bound by their undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Customs Authorities. The petitioners will not create any charge against the vehicle nor will dispose it of, during the pendency of the proceedings against them.
6. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./A‑140/L Order accordingly.