How to Pursue a Customs Reference Dismissal: A Legal Overview of Customs Reference Procedures in Pakistan
In Pakistan, the filing of customs references under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, provides the applicant-department the opportunity to challenge the decisions of the Customs Appellate Tribunal before a higher judicial forum. The references generally involve legal queries regarding the interpretation of the Customs Act and related legislation. The judicial process examines both legal principles and factual matters arising from the enforcement of customs laws, leading to a final determination.
Table of Contents
- Legal Question Raised in the Reference
- Facts of the Case
- Tribunal’s Decision
- Judicial Analysis of the Legal Question
- Conclusion and Court’s Order
Legal Question Raised in the Reference
In these connected references, the applicant-department seeks to challenge the decision rendered by the Customs Appellate Tribunal in its judgment dated 03.02.2022. The applicant has raised the following legal question for the opinion of this Court:
“Whether the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal erred in law by declaring the lawful exercise of powers under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, by the officer of the seizing agency as unlawful?”
This question pertains to the legality of the exercise of powers under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, by the officer of the seizing agency in relation to the seizure of goods.
Facts of the Case
The Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation-Customs, Lahore, seized 28,323 cartons of ceramic tiles of Chinese origin from the respondents’ premises. The goods in question were found to lack the requisite documentation, including proof of lawful import or possession. The goods were detained between June and July 2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969.
Subsequently, a portion of the goods, comprising 20,416 cartons, was classified as smuggled on the grounds that the article numbers and batch numbers did not correspond with the official records. The goods were seized on 24.07.2020 pursuant to a contravention of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1959.
Tribunal’s Decision
The respondents contested the show-cause notice issued in respect of the seized goods. The Tribunal, after examining the records, found that the respondents had discharged their burden of proof by submitting relevant documents, including Goods Declarations, assessment sheets, examination reports, and sales tax records, demonstrating lawful possession of the goods.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant-department had failed to substantiate the charge of smuggling, as its case was based on conjectural assumptions rather than concrete evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the search conducted under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, did not comply with the legal requirements stipulated by the statute and, as such, declared the search unlawful.
Judicial Analysis of the Legal Question
This Court, in its capacity under Reference jurisdiction, is confined to addressing only questions of law. It does not possess the mandate to reassess the factual findings of the Customs Appellate Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal’s conclusions were grounded in the evidence provided by the respondents, which adequately established lawful possession of the goods. The Tribunal further observed that the applicant-department’s case was based on speculative reports, which lacked the necessary evidentiary support to substantiate the charge of smuggling.
The legal question, as posed by the applicant-department, pertains to the interpretation of Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the actions taken by the Customs officer in this case were lawful. However, even if this question were decided in favor of the applicant-department, it would not alter the factual determination made by the Tribunal. The respondents had already proven the lawful nature of the goods’ possession, and the applicant-department had failed to establish its allegations of smuggling.
Conclusion and Court’s Order
The legal question raised by the applicant-department, concerning the validity of the search under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, does not present a substantial legal issue that warrants further judicial examination. Given that the factual findings of the Tribunal have not been contested or demonstrated to be in error, the Court declines to answer the legal question posed by the applicant-department.
In light of the above, the references filed by the applicant-department are dismissed for lack of merit. The Tribunal’s decision stands upheld.
Order
In view of the foregoing, the references are hereby dismissed. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Customs Appellate Tribunal under the seal of the Court, in accordance with the provisions of Section 196(5) of the Customs Act, 1969.
Reference Dismissed