Pakistan Case Law
2006 PTD 534

Messrs ZARGHOON ZARAI CORPORATION vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 PTD 534
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Special Customs Appeal No, 64 of 2004 C.P.L.A. No,356-K of 2005
Date2005-10-25
Judge(s)Rana Bhagwandas, Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza
Authored byRana Bhagwandas
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition arises from an order of the Sindh High Court dismissing the petitioner's Special Customs Appeal against the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal's order, which had upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector Customs regarding the seizure of goods. The core legal question was whether the determination of the origin of seized goods constituted a question of law or fact under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the High Court could interfere with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and the Additional Collector regarding whether the goods were of foreign or local origin did not raise any question of law for determination by the High Court under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. The key principle laid down is that the High Court rightly declines to exercise its appellate jurisdiction under the Customs Act when the matter involves pure questions of fact concluded by the departmental forums without any legal infirmity or error of law.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the determination of the origin of seized goods is a question of fact or law under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and the customs authorities?
  • Does an appeal lie to the High Court under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 on purely factual controversies?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969
Customs ActSpecial Customs Appealfindings of factquestion of lawseized goodsforeign origin

ORDER

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court order, dated 15-3-2005 dismissing Special Customs Appeal of the petitioner against the order passed by Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Tribunal upholding Order-in-Original passed by Additional Collector Customs.

2. Operative part of the impugned order reads as under:- "We have heard the learned counsel at length with reference to the relevant facts and the questions proposed in this appeal. The moot point for consideration in the matter is that whether the goods seized from the appellant were not of foreign origin and the appellant was in lawful custody of the same. By majority view, the Tribunal has recorded its findings against the appellant on this point which is a finding of fact deciding the fate of appellant's claim.

' In view of above, in our opinion, none of the questions proposed in this appeal is a question of law within the ambit of section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. This appeal has, therefore, no merits and the same is accordingly dismissed along with listed application."

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are firmly of the view that the vital question of fact as to whether the goods were of Iranian origin or local made has been concluded by the Tribunal as well as the Additional Collector of Customs, which does not raise any question of law for determination by the High Court in terms of section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified to decline exercise of its jurisdiction as under the relevant law only a question of law can be raised before it in such appeal. In our considered opinion, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity, material irregularity or error of law or of jurisdiction.

4. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed as being without any merit and substance.

Cited by 14 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.