Redemption

2024 PTD 1415 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(s), 16, 17, 156(1)(8), 156(1)(89), 157(1), 157(2) & 181SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009Smuggling of petroleum productsConfiscation of vehicle carrying such productRedemptionScopeRespondent's vehicle was confiscated for carrying Diesel Oil under the cover of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

Appellant / Collectorate filed appeal before the Tribunal to modify the order of Collector Adjudication whereby an option had been given to the owners under S. 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 to redeem the vehicle confiscated under S.157(1) & (2) of the Customs Act, 1969, carrying smuggled goods on payment of redemption fine along with personal penalty

Validity

Seizing Officer had failed to bring the case of the respondent within clause (b) of the SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009

Even the Appellant / Collectorate failed to produce any fresh evidence before the Tribunal necessitating interference with the impugned order

In view of the above, Tribunal maintained the impugned order passed by the Adjudication Officer

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2016 MLD 1590 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Redemption

No bar existed to bring second suit where property was not redeemed despite on earlier decree for redemption.

2016 MLD 1590 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Redemption

No bar existed to bring second suit where property was not redeemed despite on earlier decree for redemption.

2016 MLD 1319 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.60Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 148MortgageRedemptionSuit for redemption of mortgaged propertyLimitationContention of defendants was that they were owners of suit propertySuit was dismissed being time barredValidityMortgagors were in possession of the suit propertyProperty once mortgaged could never remain mortgaged for an indefinite periodOnce a mortgage always a mortgage and mortgagee could not step in the shoes of owners by lapse of timeAlleged mortgage was not a mortgage by conditional sale

Even if there was a clause in the mortgage deed to the effect that mortgagee would become owner in possession of property on non-payment of mortgage money on expiry of any stipulated period even then the possession of mortgagee over the said property would remain as mortgagee and would not stand converted in possession as owner thereof

Lawful owner could not be deprived of his right merely by efflux of time nor a person enjoying possession for a long time could be awarded with premium of ownership

Mortgagors, in the present case, had simply prayed for closure by paying the redemption money to the mortgagees and correction of the revenue record thereof

Mortgagee could not take plea of prescription of a mortgaged property when he had no possession of the same

Suit could not be dismissed simply that the land was not redeemed within sixty years

Mortgagee even otherwise could not bring a suit of ownership on the plea of prescription

Both the courts below had misread the revenue record and settled law on the subject

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below were set aside and suit was decreed as prayed for subject to payment of mortgage amount within one month

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2015 PTD 1733 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2 (s), 15, 16, 156 (I) (90), 181, 187, 196 & 244Notification S.R.O.499(I)/2009, dated, 13-6-2009Smuggled goodsRedemptionCustoms authorities recovered smuggled foreign cloth from a vehicle and seized both the goods and vehicleAuthorities confiscated the goods but allowed release of vehicle on payment of 20% redemption fine

Appellate authority modified the order and also allowed to release of goods on payment of redemption fine equal to 30% of customs value of goods

Customs, Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed appeal by reducing certain duties and fine

Validity

Initial onus to prove valid importation and payment of duties and taxes or even its lawful possession was upon the person in possession of questionable goods under S. 187 of Customs Act, 1969, read with S. 156(1)(90) of Customs Act, 1969

If person in possession of questionable goods or its owner was unable to discharge his onus to prove valid importation or lawful possession, the same would come within the mischief of term "smuggled goods" under S.2(s) of Customs Act, 1969

Any "smuggled goods" as provided under S.2(s) of Customs Act, 1969, could be released on payment of redemption fine under S. 181 of Customs Act, 1969, unless expressly notified by the Federal Government under the first proviso to S. 181 of Customs Act, 1969

Concerned officer in absence of any compelling reasons, must not withhold exercise of discretion of giving option to owner of goods under S. 181 Customs Act, 1969, in lieu of payment of fine, except in the cases in which goods could not be allowed to be circulated in market or goods which were imported in violation of S. 15 of Customs Act, 1969, or of the notification issued under S.16 of Customs Act, 1969

Officers dealing with confiscated goods, on payment of fine, could not alter the same at their own discretion

Fact whether questionable goods seized were foreign or locally manufactured, was a question of fact, which could be agitated and decided before forums provided under Customs Act, 1969, and not before High Court in its jurisdiction under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969

Orders issued by Federal Board of Revenue under S. 181 of Customs Act, 1969, was delegated legislation and was distinct from the orders issued under S.244 of Customs Act, 1969

Provisions of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009, were orders issued by Federal Board of Revenue under S.181 of Customs Act, 1969, and were binding upon customs officers, even when they were adjudicating the matters as qusi judicial authorities under Customs Act, 1969

High Court set aside judgments passed by the forums below and reference was answered in affirmative.

1968 SCMR 918 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Redemption,

Suit for redemption-Special Leave to Appeal against decree passed in-Refused by Supreme Court.

1967 PLD 243 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 58 & 91

Mortgage-Redemption-Any person interested in equity of redemption, entitled to redeem mortgaged property-Property transferred, during subsistence of mortgage, to third party by mortgagor-Transfer, though not legal, is voidable and not void

Such transferee can redeem mortgage as long as transfer made to him is not avoided-Tender of mortgage money by such transfereeValid-Suit for redemption by mortgagor, in such circumstances, competent

1966 PLD 267 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 58 & 60 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 148-Mortgage-RedemptionCreation of additional charge-Whether and when amounts to novation of mortgage so as to give fresh start to period o) limitation for redeeming property-Entry in revenue papers of faq-i-farzi-Effect.

1954 PLD 53 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Redemption

Earlier suit resulted in preliminary decree for redemption on payment of a certain amount-Amount riot Paid Second suit for redemption, held, riot barred-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 11, 47.

1952 PLD 125 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Redemption Redemption

Prior mortgagee suing without making puisne mortgagee party to suit-Purchaser in execution of decree in suit has preferential right to redeem puisne mortgage in suit by latter to redeem prior mortgage.