1980 PLP 154 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The above six petitions are directed against a consolidated judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan dated 16th December, 1974, by which six writ petitions by the respondents in each petition, were allowed and certain orders made by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, 1969 (Act IV of 1969) in respect of certain cars allegedly `Smuggled" into Pakistan and seized by the Coast) Guard Officers on different dates and at different places were quashed. The impugned judgment proceeded on the short ground that the seizure of the offending cars by the Coast Guards was illegal, firstly because of want of authority in the officers of the Coastal, Guards to seize smuggled goods and secondly, that there was nothing to show that the cars were among the prohibited goods which cannot be imported except under the valid import permit. It appears that the only notification to which the attention of the learned Judges in the High Court was invited was S. R. O. 1426 (1)/73 dated the Stn October 1973 issued by the Central Board of Revenue under subsection (a) of section 2 and subsection (2) of section 156 of the Customs Act, by which the import of 26 items was prohibited in super session of notifications issued in the relevant behalf. Cars were not among the items prohibited. From this it was inferred that there was no prohibition against the import of cars into Pakistan, arid a fortiori, the cars in question could not be treated. as "smuggled" within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Customs Act. It appears that the Deputy Attorney, General also conceded that officers of Coast Guards seized the cars in ques tion. On these premises, reliving on a judgment of the former Karachi Bench in S. M. Yusuf v. Collector of Customs, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that any consequential action taken by the Customs Officers following the illegal seizure of the cars was itself illegal. In reaching that conclusion, it is a pity that it was assumed that the notification of the 5th October 1973 was exhaustive on the subject. The attention of the learned Judges does not seem to have been dram to the provisions of section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (Act XXXIX of 1950) and the various orders issued under section 3 (1) ibid, from time to time. Accord ingly. the learned Judges considered it unnecessary to go into the further question whether or not the offending cars were ' `smuggled" or as the case may be imported against forged permits, as the show‑cause notice issued in some cases tended to show. Mr. Naeemuddin, learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Govern ment appearing in support of these petitions, however, relied on order S. R. O. 1264 (K)/1968 dated the 24th July 1968 issued under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act of 1950 by which a large variety of goods set out in Schedule 11 to the notification including cars are prohibited from being imported in Pakistan `except under an import licence or an import permit issued by the Chief Controller o: any Controller or Deputy Controller or Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports. By virtue of subsection (3) ibid all goods to which an order issued under subsection (1) applies, are "deemed to be goods" of which import or export has been prohibited or restricted under section 16 of the Customs Act of 1969. The above notification was replaced by S.R.O. 920 (1)/3 dated 25th June, 1973. Under the new notification cars are again listed among the prohibited goods. Therefore it was stressed by the Learned Standing Counsel that throughout during the material period cars remained on the prohibited list and could not have been imported into Pakistan except under a valid import permit issued by any of the above‑mentioned officers. Learned Standing Counsel also drew our attention to S. R. O. 30 (1)/73 dated 4th January 1973 issued by the Central Board of Revenue by which officers of the Coast Guards not below the rank of Junior Commissioned Officers without their respective jurisdiction were entrusted with the function of Officers of Customs under sections 157 to 169 and 171 of the Customs Act. This it was submitted gave ample authority to the Coast Guard Officers, who in the instant case had requisite rank to seize the offending cars. Learned counsel, therefore argued that impugned judgment of the High Court entirely proceeded on a misconception of law. The law points raised by learned counsel need examination. Accordingly, we grant leave in these six petitions. Appeals shall be heard on the present record as soon as may be after e the vacation. The respondents will, however, be at liberty to file any additional documents. Respondents shall not in any manner dispose of and otherwise pledge the offending cars in the meantime. Leave granted.