Confiscation of vehicle

Before insertion of proviso to Section 157(2) of Customs Act, 1969 it remained effective for a short period and was omitted through Finance Act, 2022

Proviso inserted in section 157 of Customs Act, 1969 generally explained the extent of confiscation and did not in any manner affect, limit or interfere with the powers conferred on Federal Board of Revenue under Section 181 of Customs Act, 1969

In the context of giving an option to release goods in lieu of payment of fine, provisions of Sections 157 and 181 were independent of each other and the former could not be construed as having an overriding effect on the latter

Inserted and then omitted proviso was not relevant or attracted in the matter, as the vehicle was found carrying smuggled goods and was used exclusively for transportation thereof, which was covered under clause (b) of Preamble to Notification SRO 499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009 and the option contemplated under section 181 of Customs Act, 1969 could not have been given for its release

Aggrieved person is the one whose legal right have been invaded, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected

Expression aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, denial of some personal pecuniary or property rights, or imposition upon a party for burden or obligation

Statutory right of appeal provided under Section 194A of Customs Act, 1969 is confined to an aggrieved person or an officer of customs

Petitioner was not owner of vehicle, nor had the latter sought benefit under section 181 of Customs Act, 1969

Petitioner was neither authorized by nor was acting as a lawful attorney on behalf of owner of vehicle

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the orders of confiscation of vehicle in question

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Before insertion of proviso to Section 157(2) of Customs Act, 1969 it remained effective for a short period and was omitted through Finance Act, 2022

Proviso inserted in section 157 of Customs Act, 1969 generally explained the extent of confiscation and did not in any manner affect, limit or interfere with the powers conferred on Federal Board of Revenue under Section 181 of Customs Act, 1969

In the context of giving an option to release goods in lieu of payment of fine, provisions of Sections 157 & 181 were independent of each other and the former could not be construed as having an overriding effect on the latter

Inserted and then omitted proviso was not relevant or attracted in the matter, as the vehicle was found carrying smuggled goods and was used exclusively for transportation thereof, which was covered under clause (b) of Preamble to Notification SRO 499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009 and the option contemplated under section 181 of Customs Act, 1969 could not have been given for its release

Aggrieved person is the one whose legal right have been invaded, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected

Expression aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, denial of some personal pecuniary or property rights, or imposition upon a party for burden or obligation

Statutory right of appeal provided under Section 194A of Customs Act, 1969 is confined to an aggrieved person or an officer of customs

Petitioner was not owner of vehicle, nor had the latter sought benefit under section 181 of Customs Act, 1969

Petitioner was neither authorized nor was acting as a lawful attorney on behalf of owner of vehicle

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the orders of confiscation of vehicle in question

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Documents / evidence remained un-rebutted and there was no justification available with authorities to pass an order with regard to outright confiscation of vehicle in question

Respondent / owner had discharged his burden with regard to ownership of the vehicle

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal which was the last fact finding authority and its decision was on the basis of facts obtained in the matter

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent was alleged to have smuggled goods and his vehicles were also found to be used in violation of Ss.2(a), 156(2), 157(2) & 178 of Customs Act, 1969, therefore, vehicles were confiscated by authorities

Validity

Offence was governed by SRO No.499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009, issued under S.181 of Customs Act, 1969, and it provided that no option would be given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of goods or class of goods mentioned therein

Lawfully registered vehicle/conveyance, having packages and containers inside, found carrying smuggled goods, in false cavities or exclusively or wholly for transportation of offended goods under S.2(s) of Customs Act, 1969, had become subject matter of such offence

Vehicle or conveyance used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offended goods could not be distinguished from the one having packages and containers inside as such conveyance having packages and containers were inclusive of such definition of vehicle / conveyance

High Court answered the question in affirmative in favour of authorities and against the respondent

Reference was allowed accordingly.

Stance taken by applicant at a belated stage was that the vehicle was cleared under SRO 568(I)/2008, dated 11-06-2008, which amounted to admitting that it was smuggled

No document was placed on record to establish clearance of the vehicle under the said SRO

Said notification/SRO explicitly excluded vehicles having tampered engines or chassis numbers

Concurrent findings did not suffer from any illegality

Reference application was disposed of accordingly.

Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication), although, had required the Motor Registration Authority to provide documents relating to registration of the vehicle but without awaiting its reply had confiscated the vehicle on the report of Forensic Laboratory that the chassis number of the vehicle was tampered with

Validity

Applicant had placed on record copies of the registration documents purportedly obtained from the Motor Registration Authority

Matter was decided in a hasty manner without assigning reasons for not waiting for the reply

Appellate Tribunal had not dilated upon such vital aspect of the case nor had it considered the contention of applicant that S.168(2), Customs Act, 1969 provided, in case of failure to give show cause notice within two months of the seizure, the goods would be returned to the person from whose possession the same were seized

Appellate Tribunal had passed the impugned order in violation of S. 24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897 in as much as it lacked valid lawful reasons

Case was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh

Reference application was disposed of accordingly.

Vehicles in question were confiscated by authorities on the allegation that High Speed Diesel (HSD) Oil was being smuggled in them

Customs Appellate Tribunal released the vehicles

Validity

Trucks were intercepted by customs authorities on the basis of spy information

Such detention was converted into seizure and trucks were seized on the charges of violating the provision of S. 2(s) read with Ss.16 & 18 of Customs Act, 1969 and also read with Ss. 3 & 3(1) of Import and Export Control Act, 1950

Customs Appellate Tribunal rightly decided the issues which otherwise were based on findings of facts after detailed discussion, deliberation and interpretation of provisions of law

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as same did not carry any mistake apparent on record

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

Section 32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 deals with the final confiscation or release of the vehicle to the owner, after conclusion of the trial, if he has proved that he has no knowledge about the offence, which has been committed in the vehicle

Not only that an innocent owner of the vehicle is entitled to the return of the vehicle but the burden has been placed on the prosecution to establish that the owner has the knowledge of his vehicle being used in the crime

Knowledge is to be proved by leading evidence and the Trial Court can form such opinion after having taken into consideration the facts of the case.

Said vehicle was to be confiscated in terms of S.32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in favour of State.

Vehicle in question was confiscated from the petitioner in favour of the State on the basis that the registration documents submitted by the petitioner were found to be forged

Upon verification of registration papers of the vehicle, the Excise and Taxation Department found the same to be forged

Excise and Taxation Officer was supplied with the necessary proclamation in a daily newspaper under Rule 9(1) of the Gilgit Baltistan Seizure and Disposal of Motor Vehicles Rules, 2018, which was made part of the present writ petition

No one filed any claim in respect of the vehicle before the Excise and Taxation Department, and ultimately the vehicle was confiscated in favour of the State

No illegality had been committed by the Excise and Taxation Department and the vehicle was confiscated after due process of law

Petitioner could not be handed over possession of a vehicle , the registration of which was found to be forged

Writ petition was dismissed accordingly.

Appellant, having failed to produce valid registration and other legal documents in respect of vehicle in question, Additional Collector Customs confiscated vehicle, seized by F.C. troops

Appellant raised objection to the effect that seizure was conducted by "Subedar" of the FC under S.157 of the Customs Act, 1969, who was not authorized to seize the vehicle under said section in the light of S.R.O. No.1090(I)/2010, dated 1-12-2010

Objection of the appellant was not sustainable as the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for violation of Ss.2(s) & 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the appellant had not raised any objection at the time of show-cause notice

'Subedar' of FC Force was competent to seize the vehicle

Impugned order of confiscation passed by Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication), was upheld, in circumstances.

Applicant having failed to produce any document to substantiate payment of duty/taxes levied against vehicle recovered from him, Adjudicating Authority vide order-in-original confiscated the vehicle; and appeal filed by applicant against order-in-original was dismissed by the Tribunal

Applicant filed application praying that said order be rectified; and order of confiscation be set aside; and vehicle be released to him unconditionally

Rectification, would mean to make a correction, and the Tribunal would confine itself to exercise the powers to correct only the clerical or arithmetical mistake in such order/judgment which had occurred due to accidental slip or omission

Rectification, could not be stretched nor its scope could be widened to an extent thereby defeating the manifest intent of the Legislature

Once court/judge signed and pronounced judgment, thereafter, court would cease to exercise jurisdiction in the same matter as court would become functus officio

When a judgment was signed and announced, aggrieved party could assail impugned order/judgment before the higher courts in appeal, revision, or could file a revision application in the same court, if the remedy of revision had been provided in the relevant statute as right of revision was a substantive right, and was always a creation of statute on the subject

Except said remedies, a previous judgment, could not be re-opened

Remedy of revision, having not been provided in Customs Act, 1969, after signing the judgment/order, and announcing, same could not be reopened through a rectification application

Judgment signed and announced, could not be annulled, set aside any modified by means of an application for rectification under S.194-B of the Customs Act, 1969

Application, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Car in question taken into custody on the allegation that same was being used by appellant/accused in the commission of crime, was confiscated in favour of State and its auction was also ordered

Said car was given to appellant in superdari by Special Court, but ignoring such aspect of the matter; and also violating the process of issuance of notice to the appellant/owner and to enquire into the matter, confiscation of the car was ordered by the Special Court

Impugned judgment to the extent of confiscation of car was nullity in the eye of law, and was not sustainable

To such extent impugned order was set aside, and matter was remanded to the Special Court with the direction, first to issue notice to the owner of car, and then to conduct a discrete inquiry, while maintaining superdari with the appellant; and thereafter pass an order with regard to disposal of car.

Police recovered 99 kilograms of charas pukhta, 48 kilograms of charas garda and 38.2 kilograms of opium from secret cavities of the truck in question

Trial Court ordered confiscation of the truck

Validity

Owner of truck never bothered to lay his claim of ownership before the Trial Court and instead waited for the fate of the case

Owner had approached the High Court at appellate stage of case claiming ownership to save himself from the clutches of the law being the alleged owner of the truck from which large quantities of charas and opium were recovered

Trial Court had rightly passed order for confiscation of the truck by observing all legal formalities contained in S.32(2), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner had failed to prove his ownership or import and Appellate Tribunal, after considering all aspects, had rightly dismissed appeal by the petitioner

Reference to High Court was filed against judgment of Appellate Tribunal after about 10 months of impugned order which was time-barred and petitioner could not offer any plausible explanation for such delay in filing reference; reference was not entertainable on that score alone

No case for interference with the impugned order having been made out, Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

Proviso to S.32(2) of Contra; of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had laid down prerequisite conditions that no vehicle, vessel or other conveyance would be liable to confiscation, unless it was proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed; in fact knowledge was a point of fact and was to be adjudicated in accordance with law in a normal procedure of dispensation of justice by putting the owner on notice and not necessarily the accused

No effort was made to ascertain and determine the question that appellant knew that the offence was being or was to be committed

All those procedural pre-requisite had not been observed by the Trial Court and order had been passed for confiscation of vehicle in question

Requirements of S.32 or 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had not been followed and observed in circumstances

In view of illegality committed by the Trial Court, impugned order was set aside to the extent of confiscation of vehicle, in question and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law and decision of the case.

Vehicle in question was confiscated by the appellant/Customs Authority and Appellate Tribunal accepting appeal filed by the respondent, ordered release of vehicle in question, unconditionally and department had filed reference application before the High Court against judgment of the Appellate Tribunal

Maintainability of said reference application had been objected to by the respondent on the ground that no question of law was involved in the case and question involved in the case was purely a question of fact

Under S.193 of Customs Act, 1969 appeal was provided to Collector (Appeals) against any decision/order passed under S. 179 of said Act by an officer of Customs and any order passed thereon was subject to a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under S.194-A of the Act

Finality was attached to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal

Scheme of said provisions of law had unambiguously laid down that Appellate Tribunal was final arbiter for determining question of facts as well as mixed questions of facts and law and finality was attached to such orders, so far as hierarchy provided by Customs Act, 1969 was concerned

Reference could only be made to the High Court under S.196 of the Customs Act, 1969 where a pure question of law would arise out of the order of Appellate Tribunal

High Court could not even enter upon the controversy, brought before it and proceed to hear the case, unless it was satisfied that a question of law would arise out of such order

Question of law would be a question which either required interpretation of a provision of law or applicability or otherwise of any such provisions to a particular set of facts

Question of law did not require investigation of facts

Intention of Legislature as expressed in S.196 of Customs Act, 1969 was clear in that High Court had been given a limited advisory jurisdiction to that extent and was neither empowered nor required to determine propriety, legality or merit of each and every decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal

Appellate Tribunal in the present case had only found that the findings of fact of two forums below with regard to chassis of the confiscated vehicle, were not maintainable

No possible question of law would arise out of said order

Pure questions of fact involved in case could only be raised before appellate/revisional forum and not before the High Court exercising advisory jurisdiction under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969

Decision of Appellate Tribunal, neither suffered from any illegality or infirmity nor was contrary to or in violation of any provision of Customs Act, 1969

No question of law having been referred to the High Court which was necessary pre-condition for maintainability of application under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, application was dismissed.

Trial Court confiscated the passenger bus allegedly carrying the contraband, without any proof of the condition precedent stated in S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

No evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove firstly as to who was the owner of the vehicle; and that the owner knew that the offence was being or was to be committed

Order of confiscating the passenger bus, without any evidence to prove the conscious knowledge of the owner was illegal and without lawful authority

Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Judge Special Court to inquire into the claim of ownership made by appellants or any other person; and thereafter hand over the confiscated bus to its legal owner.

Writ petition had been filed to call into question the vires of notification whereby 2.5% development charges in addition to the registration fee had been imposed on transfer of immovable property on the basis of gift deeds

Petitioners assailed the notification contending that same was ultra vires, ab initio void, mala fide and against their fundamental rights

Validity

For a valid notification two points were essential to the effect that authority issuing the notification must have power to issue notification under Act, Ordinance, Regulation, Rule, Order or by law within the meaning of S.3(37b) of General Clauses Act, 1897 and that notification must be published in the official Gazette

Impugned notification lacked both said ingredients

Right of property of a citizen would come within the ambit of fundamental rights and no tax or any other impediment could be imposed on it except through due course of law, rules and regulations and by the authority competent to levy the tax etc.

Impugned notification having been proved to be void and without lawful authority; same was in deviation of fundamental rights of the petitioners as well as the public-at-large

Notification in question was set-aside, declaring same void ab initio, ultra vires and against fundamental rights of the petitioners and public at large and that the judgment would have effect as judgment in rem.

Petitioner, who claimed legal import of vehicle, requested for its release on payment of duty and taxes, which was accepted and release of vehicle was ordered on payment of redemption fine and duty and taxes leviable

Customs Department, during that period, had already auctioned the vehicle, which offended the petitioner who filed constitutional petition

Petitioner had alleged that vehicle was auctioned in undue haste and that no notice was given to the petitioner before said auction

Customs Department denied said allegations and urged that a notice under S.201 of Customs Act, 1969 was given to petitioner through. registered post

Evidences on record had established that notice under S.201 of the Customs Act, 1969 was given to the petitioner regarding sale/auction of vehicle

Customs Department, in circumstances, could not be held to have violated any provisions of Customs Act, 1969

Constitutional petition was dismissed, however as petitioner was allowed to redeem the vehicle on payment of redemption fine, in addition to duty and taxes leviable thereon, he was entitled to receive the sale proceeds from the department in accordance with law.