Messrs AHMED BROTHER TRADE INTERNATIONAL, GILGIT vs COLLECTOR
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which had upheld the dismissal of a Reference against the Customs Appellate Tribunal's decision. The petitioner sought the release of a consignment of imported 'Dipyron Injections' that had been seized by Customs authorities. The core legal questions were whether the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner was time-barred and whether the seized goods, which were found to be unregistered and contained a banned substance (metaminzole), should be released. The Supreme Court held that the show-cause notice was issued within the legal timeframe, as the formal seizure occurred only after inquiries were exhausted and the petitioner failed to provide necessary import authorizations. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that goods containing substances banned for their adverse effects on human health cannot be released or returned to the importer. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented, and upheld the lower forums' decisions to confiscate the prohibited consignment.
- Can goods containing substances banned for health reasons be released to an importer?
- Does the period for issuing a show-cause notice under the Customs Act 1969 commence before the formal seizure of goods?
- Is a consignment subject to confiscation if it is imported without required authorization and contains banned substances?
- Section 32(1), Customs Act 1969
- Section 3(1), Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950
- Drugs Control Act 1976
' MUHAMMAD MOOSA KHAN LEGHARI, J.---The petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-6-2008 passed by the Islamabad High. Court in C.R. No.5 of 2008. By the said judgment the Reference filed by the petitioner against the judgment of Customs Appellate Tribunal was dismissed.
2. Precisely stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed G.D. No.3018 of 2007, dated 11-6- 2007 through Messrs Haideri Enterprises, Customs Clearing Agency for the clearance of their consignment imported from China on 14-6-2007 vide IGM No.3069 of 2007, dated 4-6-2007. On examination of the consignment, after its de-stuffing, by the Customs Authorities, the same was found to contain "Dipyron Injunctions". The importer/clearing agent could not produce any proof of import authorization from the sole distributor and Ministry of Health, Islamabad. Hence the goods were detained for want of NOC from Ministry of Health. On inquiry it was informed by Ministry of Health that the drug, so imported, was unregistered. Besides, the consignment, contained metaminzole which was banned in the country on account of its adverse effects. In order to verify the claim of the petitioner, a Reference was also made to Messrs Shaheen Agency on 16-6-2007 but the same was not responded. Subsequently, the goods were seized for having been imported in violation of section 32(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 and the rules framed under the Drugs Control Act, 1976. On receipt of seizure report a show-cause notice, dated 20-8-2007 was issued to the petitioner. Eventually the Additional Collector Customs, Rawalpindi ordered for confiscation of the seized goods. On appeal, against the order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Collector Appeals also upheld the same. The petitioner then approached the Appellate Tribunal but without success. In the Reference filed before Islamabad High Court, the orders passed by the forum below were upheld. Hence this petition.
3. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that the show-cause notice was not issued to the petitioner within the stipulated period of two months; that the petitioner was entitled to the return back of goods which were brought into the country inadvertently and mistakenly.
4. We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced before us and have also minutely scrutinized the orders passed by the High Court as well as the Customs Authorities.
5. The contention with regard to time-barred show-cause notice is ' without substance. As a matter of fact, the goods on importation were lying at the dry port area pending clearance without any seizure having been effected as the matter was being inquired into. The goods were formally seized after providing enough opportunity to the petitioner to submit the proof of import authorization. Even Messrs Shaheen Agency, Karachi, on whose behalf the petitioner claims to have imported the goods, did not respond to the query made by the Customs Authorities despite the lapse of 1-1/2 months. The petitioner were accordingly issued a show-cause notice after effecting formal seizure of the goods but it could not submit a satisfactory reply. The learned Tribunal after thoroughly dilating upon the issue of show-cause notice rightly concluded that it was within time.
Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to take a different view and to hold otherwise.
6. Regarding the second limb of arguments, suffice it say that the report from Health Ministry is available on the record to show that the goods, so imported by the petitioner, were not only unregistered but banned in Pakistan since 21-3-2006 on account of causing adverse effects to human being. In view of the fact that the drugs having adverse effect on human health already stood banned in the country could in no case, be released/returned. The contentions raised by the petitioner have sufficiently been discussed and properly dealt with by the Tribunal as well as the High Court in a legal and valid manner.
7. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted in the matter. The petition, being without merit, is dismissed, leave refused.