Monoo Gul And Other. vs Pakistan And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the seizure of goods by Customs authorities. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the phrase 'notice given' under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. Specifically, the Court must determine whether the statutory requirement to 'give notice' within two months of seizure is satisfied by the mere issuance of a show cause notice by the authorities, or whether it mandates the actual service of such notice upon the affected party. The petitioners contend that the legislative intent requires effective service to ensure the party is properly apprised of the allegations, while the State argues that 'giving notice' refers only to the act of issuance, asserting that requiring actual service would incentivize evasion. Recognizing this as a case of first impression requiring an authoritative interpretation of the statutory language, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to resolve the ambiguity regarding the procedural obligations of the Customs authorities under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969.
- Does the phrase 'notice given' in Section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 require the actual service of the notice on the accused or merely the issuance of the notice?
- Is the requirement to 'give notice' under the Customs Act 1969 satisfied by the dispatch of a notice regardless of whether it is successfully served on the addressee?
- Section 168(2), Customs Act 1969
- Section 180, Customs Act 1969
- Section 27, General Clauses Act 1897
- Section 213, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--1. The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgement and order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 6th October, 1979 dismissing his writ petition (No. 5151 of 1978).
2. The facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that on 11th February 1975, the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Staff intercepted a truck, carrying foreign cloth, betelnuts, biri leaves, batteries and some new tyres, which were suspected to have been smuggled into the country. The truck as well as the goods were seized. An F.I.R was lodged on 10th April 1975. The Deputy Collector, Central Excise issued a show cause notice to the petitioners as to why the seized goods should not be confiscated. It may be mentioned that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were the driver, cleaner and owner of the truck respectively. Petitioner No. 4 who was joined subsequently, claimed to be the owner of the seized goods.
3. The legal question that needs determination in this case is the meaning of the words 'notice given' as used in section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. The said provision reads as follows: "S.168(2) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (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 whom possession they were seized."
4. The question involved in this case, briefly stated, is whether the I words 'give notice' mean 'issue notice' to the accused or to 'effect service' of the notice on him.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the wording of section 168(2) and section 180 of the Customs Act, together with the provisions of section 27 of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897) which creates certain rebuttable presumption with regard to service to notice sent by post, argued that the intention of the legislature was clearly, that the party against whom action was sought to be taken should be put on notice as to what he is required to explain or show Cause against. In other words the requirements, according to him, is that the notice must be served on the person concerned.
6. On the other hand the learned Deputy Attorney General relied Y on the same provisions as well as section 213 of the Customs Act and the definition of word 'notice' as given in Black's Law Dictionary, argued, that, in the context, the words 'give notice' refer only to the duty cast by the law to issue a notice, to the accused persons and that to hold otherwise would amount to placing the premium on successful evasion of service by the accused persons.
7. We feel this is a case of first impression, requiring an authoritative pronouncement by this Court.
8. Leave is therefore granted to consider this question.
9. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00. The appeal shall be argued on the same record but the petitioners are permitted to file further documents, if they so desire.