Additional Collector of Customs, Lahore vs Sajid Naveed and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partially set aside a personal penalty imposed by customs authorities on the respondent, Sajid Naveed. The respondent was initially accused of smuggling gold ornaments, leading to criminal charges under the Customs Act, 1969, but was acquitted by the Special Judge Customs due to evidentiary deficiencies, specifically regarding the recovery memo. Subsequently, customs authorities initiated separate proceedings under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, resulting in the confiscation of goods and a personal penalty. While the Lahore High Court upheld the confiscation, it set aside the personal penalty, citing procedural deficiencies in its imposition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon reviewing the petition, declined to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that the veracity of the seizure was doubtful due to the lack of corroboration by recovery witnesses, and further determined that no substantial question of law of public importance existed to warrant interference with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
- Can a personal penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1969 be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction if it lacks a rational basis and proper notice?
- Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings regarding smuggling charges automatically invalidate separate departmental proceedings for confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal where the underlying seizure of goods is found to be factually doubtful and no substantial question of law is raised?
- Section 158, Customs Act 1969
- Section 157, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156, Customs Act 1969
- Section 139, Customs Act 1969
- Section 32, Customs Act 1969
- Section 16, Customs Act 1969
- Section 2(S), Customs Act 1969
- Section 171, Customs Act 1969
FALAK SHER, J.--- Sajid Naveed respondent alleged to have been apprehended by Mubashar Nazar, Inspector Customs Traffic, Airport, Lahore on 28.6.1997 having disembarked from the P.I.A. Flight PK- 223 from Dubai availing the green channel facility for allegedly illegally carrying golden ornaments weighing 1786.720 grams concealed in the speakers of ,a Tape-recorder being violative of Section 158, 157, (77)(70)(8)(1), 156, 139, 32, 16, 2(S) of the Customs Act, 1969 concerning which FIR No. 26 of the even date was lodged with the Investigation and Prosecution Cell Collectorate of Customs Custom House, Lahore, culminating into his acquittal of the charges by the Special Judge Customs, Lahore vide judgment dated 21.1.1999 according him the benefit of doubt inter alia for the reason that neither the recovery memo. Was signed by Mubashar Nazar the Selzer Officer and the recovery witness Muhammad Saleem nor Shaukat Pervaiz to whom the Seizing Officer alleged to have dictated the memo. Of recovery was produced, whose present at the spot was contradicted by Shahid Pervaiz.
2. Was subjected to show cause under Section 171 of the Customs Act ibid by the Seizing Officer resulting into confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of personal penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- by the petitioner vide order dated 30.4.1999. Which on appeal was upheld by the Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax (Appeals), Lahore on 4.8.1999.
3. However, partly granting the respondents' Writ Petition (No. 16026 of 2001) a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court maintaining confiscation of the ornaments, set-aside the personal penalty opining . That imposition thereof should have proceeded with a notice, quantum whereof should have rational basis vide the impugned order dated 16.1.2002.
4. Against which leave to appeal is being sought contending that remission of the penalty in constitutional jurisdiction is erroneous..
5. Wherein, we are not persuaded to interfere because independent of the fact that the very veracity of the seizer of the confiscated goods as well as its quantum is amenable to doubt for the recovery memo. Thereof having not been vouched by the cited witnesses, no question of law of public importance meriting interference has been pointed out. Resultantly, the same being devoid of any substance, fails and is hereby dismissed leave declined.