F.A. CORPORATION VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION
2008 P T D 1365
[Lahore High Court]
Before Kh. Farooq Saeed, J
F.A. CORPORATION through Proprietor
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL, CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION and 3 others
Writ Petitions Nos.1451 to 1455 2008, heard on 16th April, 2008.
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss. 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 4, 6 & 3(g)---S.R.O. No. 486(I)/2007 dated 9-6-2007---Appointment of the Director-General of Intelligence and Investigation for Customs and Central Excise---Director-General Intelligence of Customs and Central Excise, by all means and by any standard was an officer of customs department so approved by law for which the specific notification, that assigned powers was S.R.O. No.486(I) of 2007, dated 9-6-2007---Strong information with regard to mis-declaration, undervaluation and incorrect description of the goods being available exercise of jurisdiction with the regular appraising department and request of the joint inspection was valid, genuine and lawful---Principles.
Mazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi and 2 others 2004 PTD 2994 and Shahzad Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 2005 PTD 23 distinguished.
(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
---Ss. 17, 15 & 32---Misstatement, understatement and misdeclaration of imported goods---Powers of Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation---Scope---Where there is no doubt to the extent of misstatement, understatement and misdeclaration of goods; law provides ample and wide powers to Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation to stop the clearance of any consignment even if the same was out of charge---Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, has full powers to investigate even after the process of appraisement by the Customs Collectorate if it has reasons to believe that the goods are rnisdeclared---Principles.
Mazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi and 2 others 2004 PTD 2994 and Shahzad Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 2005 PTD 23 distinguished.
Collector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another 2005 SCMR 37 fol.
(c) Precedent---
----Law enunciated in one judgment applies on the other case only if in the said case the facts and circumstances are the same.
(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss. 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 4, 6 & 3(g)----Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199----S.R.O. No. 486(I)/2007 dated 9-6-2007---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Misstatement, understatement and misdeclaration of imported goods---Petitioner having failed to prove that action by Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation was without jurisdiction in the matter, High Court would not show indulgence by way of exercising constitutional jurisdiction.
Shahzad Mazhar for Appellant.
Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and Sultan Mehmood vice Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq with Muhammad Rauf, Senior Intelligence Officer.
JUDGMENT
KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1451 to 1455/08 as the same are basically on a common issue, though on slightly different facts.
2. The petitioners imported goods under different consignments and in different containers some of which were inspected and released by the Customs Authorities. While on demanded DOI the same were rechecked and contravention reports were prepared for seizure of the same. On the basis of above experience and informations already in the knowledge of DOI contains in the balance W.P. were jointly inspected and for the reason of misdeclaration and under-valuation in G.D form the same were also impounded. Later show-cause notices are issued along with under section 177. The petitioners have challenged the seizure as well as subsequent show-cause notices issued on the basis thereof.
3. The claim is that under section 168 only those goods can be seized which are liable to be confiscated. The arguments behind is that since no examination was carried out by the respondents Nos.3 and 4 namely Collector of Customs or Additional Collector of Customs, the contravention report prepared by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 is against their lawful powers. Further, it is an extra exercise of jurisdiction being before basic inspection as well as determination of the irregularity for intervention of the Intelligence Department. In the opinion of learned counsel direct exercise of jurisdiction by the Intelligence Department or joint inspection along with the Customs appraisement staff in terms of respondents Nos.3 and 4 by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 is unlawful exercise of the jurisdiction. His claim is that neither Intelligence Department is an authority as per Customs Law nor their appointment makes them a Customs Officer. Their appointment is separate from the regular Customs Officer. They are Government Servants of a different cadre and cannot be equated with the regular Customs staff. Inspection of the goods imported directly is beyond their jurisdiction, consequently the seizer and show-cause notice are also unlawful, hence should be withdrawn.
4. The departmental contention is that everything done by the department is legal, lawful and as per the prescribed procedure. This is not the first time that such seizer have been done. Not only that the Customs Intelligence staff are regular Customs officials but they have also been doing their duties in such and similar manner in past. It is admittedly the normal procedure that first of all the appraisement staff takes charge of the imported goods and then clear it after due charge as per law and rules. However, in a number of cases on the basis of information with the Intelligence Department, such appraisement is made jointly. Similarly some time the goods released are again intercepted within or even outside the custom compound but mostly on the basis of sound information.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. The sections which are relevant to the first issue are sections 3, 3-A, 4, 6, 9, 168 and 198. The same are reproduced as follows for the further discussion:---
"Section 3:
Appointment of officers of customs: For the purpose of this Act, the Board may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint, in relation to any area specified in the notification, any person to be
(a) a Chief Collector of Customs,
(b) a Collector of Customs,
(c) a Collector of Customs (Appeals);
(d) an Additional Collector of Customs; (e). a Deputy Collector of Customs;
(e) an Assistant Collector of Customs;
(f) fan officer of Customs with any other designation.
Section 3-A:
The Director-General (Intelligence and Investigation) Customs and Central Excise.---The Director-General (Intelligence and Investigation) Customs and Central Excise, shall consist of a Director-General and as many Directors, Additional Directors, Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors and such other officers as the Board may, by Notification in the officials Gazette, appoint.
Section 4:
Powers and duties of officers of customs: An officer of customs appointed under section 3 shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties as are conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act; and he shall also be competent to exercise all powers and discharge all duties conferred or imposed upon any officer subordinate to him:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules, the Board may, by general or special order, impose such limitations or conditions on the exercise of such powers and discharge of such duties as it thinks fit.
Section 6:
Entrustment of functions of customs officers to certain other officers: (1) The Board may, by notification, in the official Gazette, entrust, either conditionally or unconditionally, any functions of any officer of customs under this Act to any officer of the Federal Government, Provincial Government, State Bank of Pakistan and scheduled Banks:
Provided where any officer in performance of his functions under this section commits any offence under this Act, such officer shall, in addition to any other penalty which may he imposed under any other law for the time being in force, be liable to such punishment as is specified in subsection (1) of section 156 for the offence committed by him.
(2) No officer entrusted with any functions of any officer of customs under subsection (1) shall interfere in any manner in the performance or discharge of any duty by an officer of customs in places under section 9.
Section, 9:
Declaration of customs-ports, customs-airports, etc: The Board may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare:
(a) The places which alone shall be customs-ports or customs-airports for the clearance of goods or any class of goods imported or to be exported.
(b) The places which alone shall be land customs-stations for the clearance of goods or any class of goods imported or to be exported by land or inland waterways;
(c) The routes by which alone goods or any class of goods specified in the notification may pass by land or inland waterways into or out of Pakistan, or to or from any land customs-station or to or from any land frontier;
(d) The places which alone shall be ports for the carrying on of coastal trade with any specified customs-ports in Pakistan; and
(e) What shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to be a custom-house and the limits thereof.
Section 168:
Seizer of things liable to confiscation. (1) The appropriate officer may seize any goods liable to confiscation under this Act, and where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, he may serve on the owner of the goods or any person holding them in his possession or charge an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer.
(2) Where any goods are seized under subsection (1) and no show-cause notice in respect thereof is given under section 180 within two months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:
Provided that the aforesaid period of two months may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by the Collector of Customs by a period not exceeding two months:
Provided further that the limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) shall not apply to goods specified under the first proviso to section 181.
(3) The appropriate officer may seize any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful as evidence in any proceedings under this Act.
(4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under subsection (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of customs.
Section 198:
Power to open packages and examine, weigh or measure goods. The appropriate officer may open any package or container and examine, weigh or measure any goods brought to the customs-station for importation or exportation and may for that purpose unload any such goods from the conveyance on which they have been imported or are to be exported."
7. The proceedings in these cases are initiated on receipt of information that Messrs Crown Lifan Motorcycle and Parts Company, Shop No.14, China Market, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, are using the name and address of Lahore Based Importers and are involved in massive evasion of legitimate Government duty and taxes.
8. The Directorate of Intelligence, therefore, became apprehensive and started checking the doubtful cases. In the case of F.A. Corporation in Writ Petition No.1451/08 the container was checked by the staff of DOI and Custom Examining Staff. In Writ Petition No.1452/08 in the case of Asad Traders the goods had been assessed and cleared but later intercepted and seized. In Writ Petition No.1453/2008 in the case of Noor Impex, goods were jointly inspected by DOI and custom appraisement staff while in Writ Petition No.1454 of 2008 and 1455 of 2008 in the case of Usman Trading Corporation, DOI and custom appraisement staff did inspection jointly. It is in this background that this issue requires discussion. In fact the matter could end here. The appraisement staff all along remained associated with the process. The argument that the DOI comes, after said staff completed its exercise, therefore, stands met with. However, since there are legal sanctions behind their actions further dilation is made.
9. In subsection (g) of section 3 as reproduced above. The appointment of the officers of customs has been granted, to Board and for the purpose procedure has been prescribed.
Section 3-A deals with the appointment of the Director-General of Intelligence arid Investigation for Customs and Central Excise. This section is also a part of the Chapter-II which deals with the appointment of officers of customs and their powers under section 3 above. The section clearly says that the Director-General Intelligence of Customs and Central Excise shall consist of a Director-General and as many Directors, Additional Directors inter alia other officers mentioned therein as the Board may by a notification in the official Gazette so appoint. The Director of Intelligence, therefore, by all means and by any standard is an officer of Customs department so appointed by law for which the specific notification, that assigns powers is S.R.O. No.486(1) of 2007, dated 9th June, 200'7 .
10. The above sanction subsequently exercise by the Federal Board of Revenue in terms of S.R.U. mentioned above makes it clear that the Director of Intelligence as well as other officers of the said department have been appointed by the Board under law under section 3-A which is a part of Chapter-II which deals with the appointment and powers of officers of the Customs Department.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be correct in saying that section 4 while detailing the powers and duties of officers of customs department speak of section 3 only. Further that they are to perform their duties which are entrusted to them under this Act. However, the Board does have the power to impose limitation or conditions on exercise of the powers assigned to them by the Act or rules and thus can curtail the same for the purpose of proper performance of their duties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has ignored that the authority created under section 3-A has been assigned the powers by section 3-E through which the Board has been allowed to specify the functions, jurisdiction and powers of the Directorates specified in the section earlier than section 3-E. The Board, therefore, in addition to reducing or curtailing the powers of the authorities mentioned in section 3 have an upbridled discretion to assign the duties as well as the jurisdiction to the said Directorates. This means that for the authorities which are appointed under section 3, the powers and duties have been given in the Act and rule which Board can curtail or impose on some conditions on its exercise but for the purpose of Directorates which are established through sections 3-A, 3-B, 3-C and 3-D, the same is independent to the extent of giving them authority for exercise of powers by them as well as assigning of jurisdiction. It is under this scheme of law that the Board had issued aforementioned S.R.O. No.486(I)2007 and through which it has given powers to the customs authorities including Director-General of Intelligence and his other co-officers which is as follows:---
| Officers | Provisions of the Customs Act |
| Director-General of Intelligence and Investigation | Sections 17, 26, 48, 60, 62, 91, 92, 111, 139, 157(2), 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 161% 166, 167, 168(1), (3) and (4), 169, 171, 174, 175, 185-F, 185, 193, 194-A, 196, 197, 198 and 199. |
12. This Court in fact in earlier part of the above order has already practically held that the Director of Intelligence is an officer of Customs Department. Since it is within the jurisdiction of the "Board" to appoint various authorities and for that matter be that Assistant. Collector or Collector of Customs, Director of Intelligence or Investigation or Audit, the authority being with the Board not only can be appointed by the Board but can also be replaced by one another. Needless to say that a Collector of Customs and Assistant Collector for that matter may tomorrow be replaced with a Director-General of Customs and for that matter an officer subordinate to him. This therefore, would be naive to say that these authorities are not the authorities under the law of Customs.
13. So far as exercise of jurisdiction jointly with the regular appraising department is concerned, no law has been quoted so as to say that this is not permissible under the Customs Act. Furthermore, this is a matter of the procedure of appraisement. Since there was a very strong information with regard to misdeclaration, under-valuation and incorrect description of the goods. The request of the joint inspection was valid and genuine and of course lawful. The entire process adopted after submission of the G.Ds by the importers has been done under lawful exercise of jurisdiction by the two authorities simultaneously.
14. In this regard reliance of the petitioner on the judgment "Mazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi and 2 others" 2004 PTD 2994 is also of no help. The facts of this case are different than the said judgment. In the referred case even after examination, there was no solid reason for detention or seizure and in fact the learned Standing Counsel in the said case had conceded that not much could be said on the point of jurisdiction having already been decided against the respondent No.2 in another judgment of the Sindh High Court reported as 2005 PTD 23 in the case of "Shahbaz Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others". In the judgment now referred the petitioner claim was that once a consignment is out of charge cannot be seized by the Director of Intelligence. However, the finding therein was after detecting a lot of flaws in acquiring jurisdiction by them. The finding is not that Director of Intelligence does not have jurisdiction to check the goods which are out of charge but it is that certain legal requirements were found to have not been completed. Especially there was no specific reason in the notice under section 171 which was issued after about one month of the seizure of the goods. There was no mentioning as to what was the exact information forming the basis to arrive at the opinion that the goods already cleared were liable to confiscation. Moreover, the conditions precedent for seizure of goods under section 168 read with section 171 of the Customs Act that before seizure of the goods the appropriate officer should record reasons in writing as to why the goods are liable to confiscation, were missing which indicated that the opinion was generalized and vague. The Honourable Court, therefore, held that since there was prima facie no material with the appropriate customs officer after adoption of the first appointment system to deviate, the seizure was not lawful. The learned Sindh High Court in categorical and un equivocal terms has held that if the sufficient reasons and grounds were available than the same could obviously be seized. The relevant para which have practically clinched the issue is as follows:---
"The condition precedent for seizure of the goods under section 168(1) is that it should be liable to confiscation. At least there should be some prima facie material available with the appropriate Customs officer to the effect that the goods were liable to confiscation. Once the goods duly imported have been examined by the appropriate Customs officer under the first appraisement system, evaluated and assessed to duty and taxes then prima facie the goods are not liable to confiscation. However, if there are sufficient reasons and grounds available with an appropriate Customs officer that the goods are still liable to confiscation then the reasons should be recorded in writing and communicated to the owner or person from whose possession the goods are seized as soon as may be, meaning thereby within a reasonable period which may differ from case to case but it cannot be deferred for indefinite period. The reason being that once the goods have been assessed to duty and taxes under section 80 of the Customs Act, and the appropriate officer makes an order for clearance of the goods under section 83, the owner acquires a vested right for clearance of the goods. Any act depriving owner of goods of the vested right acquired by him in the course of law must be backed with sufficient reasons and grounds failing which any such action shall always be liable to be struck off."
15. The impression created by the learned counsel through these judgments, therefore, is not correct. Another important distinguishable factor is that in the said case the appraisement from the Directorate-General of Intelligence was done by a non-Gazetted officer and in the present petition there is no objection of the kind.
16. The powers of Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation' among others as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, included the detention, seizure and confiscation of the goods under section 17, imported in violation of section 15 or 16. The relevant provision speaks as follows:---
Section 17:
"Detention, seizure and confiscation of goods imported in violation of section 15 or. section 16.---Where any goods are imported into, or attempted to be exported out of Pakistan in violation of the provisions of section 15 or of a notification under section 16, such goods shall, without prejudice to any other penalty to which the offender may be liable under this Act or the rules made thereunder or any other law, be liable to detention, for seizure or confiscation, subject to approval of an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Customs, and seizure for confiscation through adjudication, if required".
17. The above provision of law is very clear in its application. Goods can be detained, seized or confiscated if they have been brought into Pakistan in violation of the provisions of section 15 or of a notification issued under section 16. This is where obviously section 15 would also need reproduction to the extent of relevant part.
Section 15:
Prohibitions:---No goods specified in the following clauses shall be brought into or taken out of Pakistan, namely:--
(c) goods having applied thereto a counterfeit trade mark within the meaning of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (Act XLV of 1860), or a false trade description within the meaning of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962 (XXXIV of 1962), the Registered Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits Ordinance, 2000 (XLIX of 2000), the Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000 (XLV of 2000), the Patents Ordinance, 2000 (LXI of 2000), and the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 (XIX of 2001), or goods imported or exported in contravention of the provisions of section 32; (Emphasis added).
18. Section 32 deals with "Untrue Statement, Error etc." and it speaks as follows:---
Section 32:
[Untrue] statements, error, etc.----If any person in connection with any matter of customs;
(a) makes or signs or causes to be made or signed, or delivers or causes to be delivered to an officer of customs any declaration, notice, certificate or other document whatsoever, or
(b) makes any statement in answer to any question put to him by an officer of customs which he is required by or under this Act to answer, [knowing or having reasons to believe that such document or statement is false] in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(2) Where, by reason of any such document or statement as aforesaid or by reason of some collusion, any duty or charge has not been levied or has been short-levied or has been erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay any amount on that account shall be served with a notice within [five] years of the relevant date, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice."
19. Section 17 read with sections 15 and 32 makes it clear that the Directorate of Intelligence can detain, seize and confiscate the goods imported or exported in contravention of the provisions of section 32 if the importer in connection with the matters' of customs has signed a document knowingly that he is misstating. In the cases under discussion, there, is no doubt to the extent of misstatement, under-statement and declaration of the goods. There is, therefore, no doubt about the jurisdiction assigned to the said Directorate in ease of an untrue statement, intentional or unintentional, detected subsequently and law provides ample and wide powers to said authority to stop the clearance of any consignment even if the same is out of charge.
20. The two judgments referred by the learned counsel, announced by our learned colleague of Sindh High Court at Karachi also are on the basis of the same. It is true that in the said two writ petitions the confiscated/seized goods were released by holding that the Intelligence Department had no powers that was done in the particular and direct circumstances of the said two eases. It does not need any addition that all cases have their own peculiar and specific circumstances. The law enunciated in one judgment applies on the other only if in the said case the facts and circumstances are the same.
21. In fact the judgment reported as (2005 SCMR 37) in the case of "Collector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another" has clinched the issue. The relevant para of this judgment is as follows:
"We are not persuaded to agree with the main contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that all the proceedings initiated against them are ab initio void as the mandatory provisions as contemplated in section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 were not adhered to in letter and spirit and the search was conducted without having the search warrants for the reason that it could have been done in view of the circumstances prevalent at the relevant moment which could only be adjudged by the concerned officer under whose supervision the raid was being conducted. It, however, cannot be done in a routine practice and every possible effort should be made to comply with the provisions as enumerated in sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act, 1969. It must not however, be lost sight of that such a raid could have been conducted pursuant to the provisions as contemplated under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, which inter alia provides that "whenever any Officer of Customs not below the rank of an Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector of Customs or any other. Officer of like rank duly employed for the prevention of smuggling has reasonable grounds for believing that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act are concealed or kept in any place and that there 6 a danger that they may be removed before a search can be effected under section 162 he may after preparting a statement in writing of the grounds of his belief and of the goods, documents or things for which search is to be made, search or cause search to be made for such goods, documents or things in that place". (Emphasis provided) insofar as the provisions as contemplated in sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, are concerned, the same have been interpreted in different cases on various occasions and judicial consensus seems to be that "before embarking upon a search without warrants the Customs Officer shall prepare a statement in writing of the grounds of his belief that the goods liable to confiscation are concealed or kept in any place and that there is a danger that they may be removed before a search can be effected under the provisions of section 162 of the Act".
22. The above judgment being by the superior most judicial authority of the country obviously require following in all respects. It has clearly been mentioned that the law does provide seizure and detention by the authorities who have been so equipped with the same. However, while acquiring jurisdiction preparing formal search warrants etc, confronting the same to the concerned persons is a pre--condition. The Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, therefore, had full powers to investigate even after the process of appraisement by the Customs Collectorate have reasons to believe that the goods are mis-declared.
23. In fact in the judgment referred in the case of "Mazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and 2 others" (supra), the Court also found that there is a need to re-organize and re-assign jurisdiction to various Customs Authorities by giving following remarks:
"Before parting with this judgment, we feel it appropriate to bring on record that we have observed that the officers and staff of the Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) are at loggerhead with the officers and staff of the Collectorate of Customs (Appraisement) as well as Collectorate of Customs (Preventive). They are affront to each other and a tug-of war is going on between them on the point of assumption of jurisdiction. This, confrontation is not a healthy sign, particularly, when all three belong to the cadre of officers of the Customs group and are under the administrative control of C.B.R.".
As is evident from the above para, the Court was fully conscious that all the authorities are customs authorities and they have overlapping powers.
24. This is where reverting back to the basic question of maintainability of the writ petition in the circumstances needs discussion.
25. A lot of case-law has been referred by both the sides. In the case of "Messrs Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer, Circle XVIII South Zone, Karachi and others" 1992 PTD 1=1992 SCMR 250 the ratio is the same that the writ is competent in appropriate cases involving fiscal laws if there is allegation of misapplication of law or abuse of power. Further it was also observed that the superior Courts can step into for examining whether or not the public functionaries concerned acting in accordance with the powers conferred on them by the statute. The power, therefore, can be exercised if the remedy provided otherwise in law is not adequate or efficacious etc. The other judgment is 2005 SCMR 37 = 2005 PTD 123 in the case of "Collectorate of Customs, Lahore and others v. Messrs Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another". The Honourable Supreme Court while directing for being conscious in exercising the writ jurisdiction has said that the object of the writ is to curb excess, of jurisdiction to keep inferior Courts and Tribunal within their bonds and writ jurisdiction is appropriate only in such cases where substantial right of an applicant has been so invaded as to prejudicially affect him if the proceedings or judgment remains un-reversed. In (2005 PTD 2400) in the case of "Messrs A.B. Traders and another v. Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore and another".---The Honourable High Court while dealing with a similar matter has held that refusal to allow clearance of duty paid imported goods being relatable to a specific prohibition or restriction on their import under the Customs Act, 1969, the detention of such would not, prima facie, suffer from jurisdictional abuse or excess. Such action was indeed harsh in its effect. However, he had to be taken exceptionally and would necessitate prompt service. In such situation, constitutional jurisdiction was held to be as not maintainable.
26. Keeping in view the above discussion and case-law, the issue in this case appears to be as very simple. The claim of the petitioner is that the exercise of jurisdiction by Director of Intelligence is beyond the power available under law. Had the petitioner satisfied this Court that lawfully said Director had no such jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction of this Court could have been exercised. However, since the petitioners have failed to prove that their action was without jurisdiction, there is no question of indulgence by way of exercising writ jurisdiction. Moreover, this is a stage of show-cause notice under section 171, which is based upon proper exercise and lawful jurisdiction against which remedies are available in terms of appeal etc. after final order under section 179.
27. The request of interference by this Court, therefore, is declined which obviously results in dismissal thereof.
M.B.A./F-14/LPetition dismissed.