Penal consequences

2024 PTD 591 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32(1), 30(b), 79, 104, 109, 156(1), Cl. (14) & 196Mis-declaration regarding description / particulars of goods imported for ware-housingAllegation ofPenal consequencesProvisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969ApplicabilityClearance of goods, stage ofScope

Liability qua evaded duties as well as personal liability was imposed upon the importer/company vide order-in-original, however, Customs Appellate Tribunal, though retaining the penalty, rejected claim of evaded duties on the ground that duties needed to be re-assessed at the time of clearance of goods

Question was whether or not, the declaration submitted/statement made, when found wrong, constituted an offence under S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969

Primary argument of importer/company, while filing reference, was that since duties had to be assessed at the time of clearance of goods, and not for in-bonding, therefore, S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969, had no applicability

Validity

It was not controverted that declaration for warehousing, qua the imported goods, was submitted in terms of S. 79 of the Customs Act, 1969, wherein particulars / description of goods was provided and the same was found incorrect in the context of description of goods and wrong mentioning of PCT Heading

Subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969, indicates its independent existence for the purposes of attracting penalty in terms of Cl.(14) of S.156(1) of Customs Act, 1969

Said Cl. (14) treats offence under subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act as an independent offence, for the purposes of the penalty envisaged

A person can be charged with offence under subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969, where he knows and has reason to believe that a document furnished and statement made in connection with the matter of Customs, is false

Similarly, subsection (1) of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969, does not draw any distinction between declaration made either for the purposes of in-bonding or ex-bonding

Evidently, incorrect declaration / statements made, even for the purposes of in-bonding, is covered under the expression in connection with any matter of customs, and same constitutes an offence under subsection (1) of S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, incurring penalty in terms of Cl. (14) of S. 156(1) of Customs Act, 1969

In the present case, factum of knowledge was not disputed while the Clearing Agent, who acted for the applicant, had not preferred any application before the High Court

Finding of fact was recorded by the Customs Appellate Tribunal with respect to the intent underlying mis-declaration

Thus, the present case fell within the ambit of subsection (1) of S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, which attracted penalty, notwithstanding submission of declaration for ex-bonding for the purposes of ascertaining duties at later stage

Thus, proposed question of law was answered in negative

Reference application filed by the importer/ company was dismissed , in circumstances.

2021 CLC 1300 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.17-A & 17-BInterim maintenance allowanceNon-paymentPenal consequencesDecreeing the suit forthwithDiscretion of the CourtScope

If defendant defaulted, in making payment of interim maintenance, despite orders by the Family Court, penal action in terms of S.17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964 ('the Act 1964') provided two separate penal consequences; first striking off the right of defence and second to decree the suit

Sections 17-A & 17-B of the Act 1964, provided that by having used the word " may " the Legislature did not intend to make passing of decree mandatory, rather it had been left upon the discretion of the Trial Court to consider the facts and circumstances of each case

Section 17-B of the Family Courts Act, 1964 further explained the circumference as well as the mode of exercising the authority in shape of making reasonable inquiry of the matter-in-question before decreeing the suit due to default i.e. the Court may issue a Commission to examine any person; make a local investigation; and inspect any property or document.

2018 MLD 149 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 17(1) & 30(1)(d)Non-Surrendering of CNIC of the deceasedPenal consequencesScope

Petitioner under constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court had sought directions to NADRA to get recovered original CNIC of his deceased father from the possession of his brother/respondent

Respondent (brother) denied possession of original CNIC of their late father

Father of petitioner and respondent was undisputedly, holding a CNIC

Section 17(1) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 provided that in case of death of holder of a Card, inter alia, the heirs were bound to surrender Card of deceased within 60 days of such death

Refusal or failure to produce or surrender the card entailed penal consequences under S.30(1)(d) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 and in view of clear provisions of Ss. 17(1) and 30(1)(d) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, it was the legal duty of NADRA to direct the concerned person to surrender the original CNIC of the deceased, if same was not already produced

If the legal heirs were not in possession of original Card of deceased, they might satisfy the concerned Authority to that effect

NADRA was directed by the High Court to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with provisions of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000

Intra-court appeal was allowed accordingly.

2016 CLCN 6 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XVII, R.3 & S.12(2)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionNon-production of evidencePenal consequences

Application filed by respondent under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside of judgment and decree was dismissed by Trial Court for the reason that respondent did not produce evidence on the date fixed

Lower Appellate Court remanded the case to Trial Court for decision afresh on merits

Validity

Trial Court lost sight of the fact that on the date when application was dismissed, neither parties were present nor last opportunity was provided by Trial Court on the request of delinquent party enabling court to proceed against under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

Trial Court proceeded against respondent which was not in consonance with law

Order passed by Trial Court dismissing application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not in accordance with law and was not sustainable, therefore, was set aside

Reasons given by Lower Appellate Court were based on true enunciation of law, therefore, the same were reiterated, ratified and endorsed

Application under S.12(2) C.P.C. would be deemed to be pending before Trial Court and respondent was allowed an opportunity to produce his evidence subject to payment of costs

Petition was dismissed accordingly.