Smuggled goods

2022 PTD 1755 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(kk), 163, 168 & 196ReferenceScopeSmuggled goodsRaid on warehouseAuthorities seized goods lying in warehouse of respondent on the plea of smuggled goodsCustoms Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by authoritiesValidity

Respondent had discharged his burden to possess the goods under lawful import and authorities failed to establish its allegation of smuggling

Authorities merely based their case on contravention report, which was held by Customs Appellate Tribunal to be based upon conjectures and surmises

High Court in its jurisdiction under Reference was only to confine itself to questions of law and was not to decide controversy of fact to interfere in orders passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal unless any illegality or jurisdictional defect going to roots of the matter was pointed out in the same, which could have resulted in miscarriage of justice or perverse decision by the Appellate Tribunal, which without deeper appreciation of disputed facts on the face of record appeared in the given circumstances of the case as not sustainable, and the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal was not possible under any circumstances

High Court declined to answer question referred by authorities as the same was un-necessary for just decision of the matter and without any substance

Reference was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 PTD 678 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(k), 17, 187 & 196Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120Smuggled goodsProofOnus to proveFactual controversyDocuments, non-verification of

Customs Authorities seized bitumen of foreign origin from warehouse of respondent on the plea of smuggled / non-duty paid

Customs Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal filed by respondent and goods were ordered to be restored

Validity

Documents produced by respondent about local purchase and corresponding Sales Tax Returns which were official documents were relied upon by Customs Appellate Tribunal

Such documents shifted burden upon Customs Authorities to show that the same were not genuine

Documents were not got verified from relevant quarters by Customs Authorities to reach conclusion whether the same were genuine or not and whether the same related to the goods in question or not

Burden that shifted upon Customs Authorities on production of documents by respondent in terms of S.187 of Customs Act, 1969, to substantiate the goods was non-duty paid had not been properly discharged

Findings of fact about genuineness of documents and lawful possession of goods were not shown to be against record

High Court could not interfere in findings of fact about genuineness of receipts relied upon by Customs Appellate Tribunal as no question of law had arisen that required determination by High Court

High Court answered the question in negative as Customs Authorities could not establish that respondent had produced bogus record

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PTD 1716 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(s), 171, 187 & 196ReferenceSmuggled goodsBurden of proof

Respondents were alleged to have smuggled HSD Oil but appellate authority and Customs Appellate Tribunal decided matter in favour of respondents

Validity

Entire process of seizure and difference of quantity of HSD Oil as reflected in show-cause notice and seizure report had made proceedings dubious

Onus to prove allegations of smuggling HSD Oil against respondents could not be discharged by customs authorities

Customs department's own documents and evidences relating to auction and delivery letters produced by customs authorities could not be falsified or disproved

No substantial legal controversy was agitated and question proposed was answered in affirmative against the authorities and in favour of respondents

High Court directed the authorities to release seized HSD Oil to respondents

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 SCMR 585 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 2(s)S.R.O. No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 ("the SRO")Smuggled goodsScope'Artificial silk cloth'Item No.28 of SRO No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 pertained to man-made or synthetic fibers/fabric

Cloth, in the present case, was described as artificial silk cloth and was undoubtedly a man-made fabric as it comprises of synthetic fiber and thus was squarely covered by Item No.28 of the SRO

Cloth in question was of a foreign origin and was a restricted/prohibited item as per Item No.28 of the SRO, therefore, it fell within the meaning of smuggled goods in terms of S. 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969.

2017 SCMR 585 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 2(s)S.R.O. No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005Smuggled goodsScope'Black tea'Consignment of "black tea" was confiscated on 06-01-2007

Item No.35 of SRO No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 stated "Black Tea (except Op-Pekoe)", thus black tea was a restricted/prohibited item and fell within the meaning of smuggled goods in terms of S. 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969.

2017 PTD 1244 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 2(s)S.R.O. No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005Smuggled goodsScope'Black tea'Consignment of "black tea" was confiscated on 06-01-2007

Item No.35 of S.R.O. No.566(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 stated "Black Tea (except Op-Pekoe)", thus black tea was a restricted/prohibited item and fell within the meaning of smuggled goods in terms of S. 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969.

2017 PTD 1297 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(s), 187 & 196ReferenceSmuggled goodsProof

High Speed Diesel recovered from respondent was alleged to be smuggled from foreign country but Customs Appellate Tribunal set aside order-in-original

Validity

Receipt of Goods Transfer Note produced by respondent to adjudication authority was duly verified from Petroleum Company and the same was found to be genuine, whereas oil and trucks were intercepted within the local city limits

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as there was no error or illegality in the same

Authorities did not raise any question of law, arising from order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal, which was based on findings of fact and there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence

Reference was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 PTD 1566 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.2(s)Smuggled goodsItems alleged to be smuggled were freely available in the open marketEffect

Items alleged to be smuggled by the prosecution were freely available in the open market and the import of such goods were not banned in the country, presumption could be that the goods in question were lawfully brought in the country and duty paid unless contrary was shown

Demand of customs officials to produce legal import document was nothing but to put undue pressure on the business community.

2013 PTD 2320 CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-II KARACHI Judicial Precedent

Ss. 179(3), 193-A(3) & 194-AAppeal before Appellate TribunalSmuggled goodsOrder of confiscation of goods was time-barredScopeCustoms Authorities detained the smuggled goods from the possession of appellantAppellant challenged the order of Customs authorities being time-barred before Collector of Customs (Appeals)Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant

Contention of the appellant was that order in original passed by the Customs Authorities and order in appeal passed by Collector Customs (Appeals) was time barred

Validity

Appellant was found involved in smuggling of the goods or if not the purchase of smuggled goods and his act was an unlawful act

While indulging in unlawful activity with the intention of evading payment of duty and taxes wilfully and consciously, the appellant was not entitled to take shelter behind the plea that the orders were time barred

Party seeking equity must have equities in his favour

No one could be allowed to take advantage of its wrong act or fraud played by him under the blanket of the provision of the Customs Act, 1969

Appellant was legally stopped from challenging validity of the order-in-original/appeal

Appellant had not approached the Appellate Tribunal with clean hands and was not entitled for any relief

Appeal was dismissed.

2013 PTD 2320 CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-II KARACHI Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(s), 9 & 10Smuggled goodsGoods brought to Pakistan other than a route declared under Customs Act, 1969Powers of the Customs Authorities to intercept or detain goods brought into Pakistan other than a declared routeScopeDetained goods were specifically notified by the Federal government to be termed as "smuggled"

Goods in question were brought into Pakistan via route other than the one declared in S.9 or S.10 of the Customs Act, 1969 or from a place other than a Customs-Station

Such goods could be either intercepted or detained for the purpose of preventing smuggling, levy of duty and taxes, penalizing.

2013 PTD 2320 CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-II KARACHI Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(s), 156 (1) (8) (9), 179 & 180Smuggled goodsItems alleged to be smuggled were freely available in the open market

Customs authorities recovered the banned/restricted items from the custody of appellant and confiscated them by treating the same as "smuggled goods"

Appellant had taken the plea that goods in question were freely available in open market and could not be termed as smuggled

Validity

Goods should be from the list of freely importable items and not falling under the restricted/banned regime of Import Policy Order

If freely importable goods were detained/seized, such goods were deemed to be duty paid

Goods in question were neither allowed to be imported free of any restriction nor the goods meant for "in transit to Afghanistan via Karachi" could be termed through any stretch of imagination that these were freely available in the market

Appeal was dismissed.

2013 PTD 2320 CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-II KARACHI Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(s), 156 (1) (8) (9), 179 & 180Smuggled goodsConfiscation of goods not importable in PakistanShow-cause noticePowers of customs authorities to seize restricted itemsScope

Customs authorities detained art silk fabric which could not be imported in Pakistan as per the provisions of Import Policy Order 2010-2011

Customs authorities raided at the godown acquired by the appellant and recovered smuggled foreign origin ladies art silk cloth having marks of "in transit to Afghanistan via Karachi"

Contention of the appellant was that he had purchased the recovered ladies art silk cloth from open market and as such the same could not be treated as "smuggled" goods

Validity

Goods meant for 'transit to Afghanistan' were pilferaged in Pakistan either by importer or the appellant himself

Plea taken by the appellant that he bought the goods from open market could not be sustainable in circumstances

Respondent/Customs Authorities were authorized to adjudicate such type of cases and in exercise of which they issued show-cause notice

Appeal was dismissed.