COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS TAHIR DAWOOD, 2005 PTD-SUPREME-COURT 1988 (2004)

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-9-2003 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in Constitution Petition No. D-1023 and judgment in Special Customs Appeals Nos. 53, 64 and 79 of 2003, dated 16-9-2003).

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 196---Appeal before High Court not involving substantial question of law---Dismissal of appeal in such circumstances would be legal.

Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Zafar Iqbal, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th February, 2003:

ORDER

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---By this common order, we intend to dispose of aforesaid four civil petitions for leave to appeal arising out of identical facts and involving common questions of law.

2. Respondent-Company submitted an Airway bill for clearance of goods imported from abroad but the Customs Authorities 'suspecting its correctness initiated contravention proceedings before the presentation of bill of entry for clearance of the imported goods. It appears that the Adjudication Officer doubting the contents of the Airway bill submitted a contravention report for initiating action at the hands of the Additional Collector (Adjudication-II), Karachi in terms of section 32(2) of Customs Act, 1969, whereupon a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents. Later Collector of Customs (Adjudication-II) after hearing the parties vide order, dated 26-3-2003 passed an Order-in-Original No.8 of 2003 ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to the respondents to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine equal to 50% of the value of the goods in addition to payment of duty and taxes as well as a penalty of Rs.1,00,000. This order was challenged before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal at Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Petitioners impugned the said order in Special Customs Appeal No.641 of 2003 and another adjudication Order-in-Original No. 464 of 2002 in Special Customs Appeal No.53 of 2003 which were dismissed vide separate judgments, dated 16-3-2003. Learned Judges of the High Court held that the findings of the Tribunal did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and were in consonance with the provisions of section 32 of the Customs Act as well as section 2(i)(a) of the said Act on the relevant date. In the opinion of the Division Bench as no substantial question of law requiring interpretation was involved in the appeals, both the appeals were dismissed, in limine.

3. C.P.L.As. Nos. 831-K of 2003 and 832-K of 2003 are directed against the said judgment of the High Court.

4. It appears that the respondents had also filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking relief against the Customs Authorities as well as one Arshad Khan praying for declaration against the seizure of their consignment being in violation of law, illegal and void ab initio. They also prayed for a direction to respondent No.1 to allow re? export/pre-shipment of their consignments as frustrated Cargo in terms of section 138 of the Customs Act, and Rules 86 to 89 Chapter-VII of S.R.O. No.450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001. The suit was contested and decreed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh with the observation that it would be safe to conclude that no notice was issued before the seizure of the goods within the stipulated period, therefore, the goods warranted release forthwith. The suit was accordingly decreed to the above extent only vide judgment and decree, dated 1-1-2003. The respondents later filed Execution Application No.120-of 2003 before the learned Single Judge seeking a directive for release of the goods but the learned fudge who had earlier decreed the suit partly, clarified that the suit was decreed to the extent that the bill of entry should be processed and a final order passed by the Customs Authorities. The learned Judge made it clear that he had not allowed unconditional release of goods and accordingly dismissed the execution application.

5. Petitioners filed High Court Appeal No.79 of 2003 before the High Court against the respondents along with two C.M.As. but the said appeal has been dismissed by a Division Bench vide judgment, dated 9-9-2003 taking the view that appeal as against respondent Arshad Khan was barred by time whereas appeal on behalf of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division, was filed without any authority and thus not maintainable. Resultantly, the appeal along with C.M.As. seeking rectification and substantial amendments in the title of the memorandum of appeal were dismissed, which is the subject-matter of C.P.L.A. No.870-K of 2003.

6. C.P.L.A. No.830-K of 2003 is, however, directed against an order passed in Constitution Petition No.1023 of 2003, which was allowed with the direction to the petitioners to implement the order of the Tribunal, dated 14-1-2003 and 20-5-2003 as appeals filed against such order were dismissed on the same day.

7. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate?-on-Record for the petitioners and Mr. Zafar Iqbal, learned Advocate-on-Record who has entered caveat on behalf of respondent No. 1.

8. After thorough examination of the record and in-depth hearing of the petitions, we find that the impugned judgments in Civil Petitions Nos. 831-K and 832-K of 2003 dismissing Special Customs Appeal do not suffer from any inherent legal infirmity, error of law or jurisdiction. Indeed, the High Court rightly concluded that as no substantial question of law was involved in these petitions as required by section 196 of the Customs Act, the appeals were dismissed after dilating upon the questions raised and relevant provision of the Customs Act. The learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners has not been able to pinpoint any error of law or defect of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3)^. of the Constitution. Essentially the Tribunal had not debarred the petitioners from processing the Airway bill and bill of entry in accordance with law and the petitioners' grievance against the impugned judgment of the High Court upholding the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be misconceived and uncalled for.

9. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

10. As regards C.P.L.A. No.830-K of 2003, Division Bench has simply disposed of the writ petition by directing implementation of the final orders passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law, to which no exception can be taken as Special Customs Appeals had been dismissed by the High Court strictly on merits. Likewise, the judgment in C.P.L.A. No.879-K of 2003, directed against the judgment of the High Court, passed in High Court Appeal dismissing the same as barred by time and not maintainable, does not raise any question of law of public importance warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.

Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal refused.

S.A.K./C-33/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave Refused.