ZARINA IJAZ Versus M. A. RAHMAN

1. NOORUL ARFIN, J. ‑‑‑These six petitions relate to seizure of cars by the Coast Guard Officers. Mr. Shah Jamil Alam, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General, invited our attention to the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973, the preamble of which states that the purpose of enactment of that Act was to prevent smug gling. "Smuggling" itself has been defined in section 2 (s) of tile Customs Act, 1969, to mean to bring into or take out of Pakistan, in breach of any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force, or evading payment o1' customs duties or taxes leviable thereon of various goods enumerated in sub‑clauses (a) and (b) of clause (s). For the purpose of these petitions, it is only sub‑clause (a) which is relevant, and it enumerates gold bullion, silver bullion, precious stones, currency, manufactures of gold or silver or precious stones or any other goods notified by the Central Government in the official Gazette, in each case exceeding Rs. 1,000.00 in value. In pursuance of this sub‑clause, the Central Government issued Notification No. S. R. O. 1426 (1)/73 published in the Gazette of Pakistan dated 5th October 1973, enumerating several other goods in addition to the good mentioned in sub‑clause (a). However, cars do not find any mention in this Notification, nor in sub‑clause (a) or (b). In view of this legal position, the learned Deputy Attorney‑General concedes that the seizure of cars by the Coast Guards in the six petitions we have before us was illegal. Accordingly, we give a declaration in these petitions that the action of the Coast Guard Officers in seizing cars in these petitions is illegal, and that the cars be restored to tile petitioners. In each of these petitions, the car has been restored to the petitioner on furnishing security or bank guarantee. Therefore, while~ granting this declaration, we further discharge the surety or bank guarantee and if in. any case cash security has been deposited in the Court, it should he refunded to the petitioner concerned. We further hold, in view of the ruling of this Court in S. M. Yousuf v. Tire Collector of Customs (P L D 1968 Kar. 599), that any action based on illegal seizure of goods, is itself illegal. We may record here. that the appeal against this decision was rejected by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Therefore, if in consequence of seizure of cars, the Customs Authorities have issued any notices, then the same are quashed hereby. This order disposes of the six petitions namely, Constitutional Petitions 990 of 1974, 1145 of 1974, 1167 of 1974, 665 of 1974, 1285 of 1974 and 1320 of 1974.

2. S. A. H. Petitions allowed.