2026 PLP 296 (PTD)
MUHAMMAD ARIF KHAN Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE (ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE) CUSTOM HOUSE, JAMRUD, ROAD, PESHAWAR and another
| Citation | 2026 PLP 296 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Yahya Afridi, HCJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF KHAN Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE (ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE) CUSTOM HOUSE, JAMRUD, ROAD, PESHAWAR and another |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP 296 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP 296 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Yahya Afridi, HCJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP 296 (PTD) (MUHAMMAD ARIF KHAN Versus COLLECTOR CUSTOMS MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE (ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE) CUSTOM HOUSE, JAMRUD, ROAD, PESHAWAR and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Rauf Rohaila, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Usman Aziz, Deputy Collector, Customs for Respondents (through video-link from Peshawar).
Headnotes / Summary
S. 169(5)
Wrong seizure/confiscation of goods, plea of
Sale proceeds
Claim in terms of Section 169(5) of the Customs Act, 1969
Scope
Declaration/ findings by Adjudication Authority /Court not obtained
Effect
Petitioner presented his claim for recovery of sale proceeds of black tea
Held: Section 169(5) of the Customs Act, 1969,stipulates that if on adjudication or in an appeal or proceedings in court, the goods sold are found not to be liable to such confiscation, the entire sale proceeds (after necessary deduction of duties, taxes or dues as provided in Section 201 of the Customs Act, 1969) shall be handed over to the owner
In the present case, the petitioner was yet to obtain such declaration or findings of the court on adjudication and had directly jumped to claim the sale proceeds of confiscated goods
Thus, in order to have the benefit of the sale proceeds under the Customs Act, 1969, the declaration of being an owner of wrongly seized/confiscated goods was inevitable, which could only be passed on to the owner if the owner was able to establish either on adjudication, appeal or proceedings in court that the goods sold were not liable to such confiscation
Petition for eave to appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
2. The record reflects that the petitioner presented his claim for recovery of sale proceeds of the Black Tea on 22.01.2021 with the Collector of Customs Preventive, MCC, Peshawar. In the said letter the petitioner claimed the sale proceeds of the Tea in question as under: Therefore, the Customs Staff seized the alleged foreign origin smuggled black tea along with the said vehicle in terms of Section 168 of the Customs, Act 1969 for offending the provisions of Sections 2(s), 16 and 157 of the ibid Act read with Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 punishable under Section 156(1)(8)(89) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. After completion of necessary formalities, the case was placed before the Deputy Collector Customs, Anti-Smuggling Division, Customs Peshawar, who vide Order-in-Original No.123 of 2011 dated 19.08.2011 confiscated the seized black tea and released the vehicle on Bank Guarantee LG No. 20/2011 dated 09.03.2011 of Rs. 1,30,000/-
3. The sale proceeds were being claimed in terms of section 169(5) of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) which provides that if on such adjudication or in an appeal or proceedings in court, the goods sold is found not to have been liable to such confiscation, the entire sale proceeds, after necessary deduction of duties, taxes or dues as provided in section 201 of the Act, shall be handed over to the owner. The petitioner is yet to obtain such declaration or findings of the court on adjudication and has directly jumped to claim the sale proceeds of confiscated goods. The judgment passed in reference jurisdiction (Custom Reference No. 27-P of 2018) is the conclusive test as to the seizure and confiscation of the goods. Such findings were challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No.176 of 2020 which was dismissed.
4. Thus, in order to have the benefit of the sale proceeds under the Customs Act, the declaration of being an owner of wrongly seized/confiscated goods is inevitable. This could only be passed on to the owner if the owner, was able to establish either on adjudication, appeal or proceedings in court that the goods sold are not liable to such confiscation.
5. This being the situation the C.P.L.A. merits no consideration is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. MQ/M-99/SC Petition dismissed.