SHAKEEL AHMAD, J. --- Through this single judgment, we propose to decide the following petitions: --
1. W.P. No, 634-B/2016.
(Bhutto Khan and others v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
2. C.O.C. No 487-B/2016.
(Bhutto Khan and others v. Inspector General of Police Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Peshawar and others)
3. W.P. No, 411-B/2015 (Taufiq Ahmad v. Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others)
4. W.P. No, 470-B/2016 (Abeedullah v. Political Agent, North "Waziristan -Agency and others)
5. C.O.C. No 508-B/2016 (Abeedullah v.. Muhammad Anwar Khan and another)
6. W.P. No, 473-B/2016 (Allah Jan v. Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others)
7. W.P. No, 475-B/2016 (Mir Afzal Khan v Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others)
8. W.P. No, 583-B/2016 (Malik Faridullah Khan Wazir v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
9. C.O.C. No, 381-B/2016 (Malik Faridullah Khan Wazir, v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and others)
10. W.P.No, 656-B/2016 (Noor Muhammad v. Inspector General of, Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Peshawar and others)
11. C.O.C. No, 51-B/2017 (Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Ali Asad and another)
12. W.P. No, 657-B/2016 (Katoor Khan v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
13.C.O.C. No, 349-B/2017 (Katoor Khan v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
14. W.P. No, 661-B/2016 (Noorat Khan v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
15. C.O.C. No, 354-B/2017 (Noorat Khan v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
16. W.P. No, 663-B/2016 (Syed. Muhammad v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
17. C.O.C. No 355-B/2017 (Syed Muhammad v. Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
18. W.P. No, 672-B/2016 (Said Nawaz v. Chief Minister, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others).
19. W.P. No, 695-B/2016 (Alma! Khan and others v. Inspector General for Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others).
20. C.O.C. No, 516-B/2016 (Ajmal Khan and others v. Inspector General for Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
21. W.P.No, 726-B/2016 (Gul Dar Khan v. The State and others)
22. W.P. No, 904-B/2016 (Mir Asam Khan v. Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
23. W.P. No, 980-B/2016 (Khushdii Khan v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Lakki Marwat and others)
24. W.P. No, 122-B/2017 (Shameenullah v. Director General Excise & Taxation Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others)
25. W.P. No, 207-B/2016 (Sher Bahader v. The State)
26. W.P. No 208-B/2017 (Muhammad Noor v. Saadullah Khan, SHO and another)
27. W.P. No, 380-B/2017 (Musa Khan v. The State and others)
28.W.P. No, 639-B/2017 (Khalid Rahman v. Inspector General for Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others).
29. W.P. No, 905-B/2017 (Khalid Mehmood v. The State and others)
30. Cr.MOP. No, 51-B/2016 (Rahman Gul v. The State and another)
31. Cr.MOP. No 59-B/2016 (Din Wali Khan v. Murad Ali Shah, SHO and another).
32. Cr.MOP. No, 60-B/2016 (Ajab Noor v. SHO, Police Station Mirian, Bannu and another)
33. Cr.MOP. No, 2-B/2017 (Sher Wali Khan v. Tariq Mahmood Khan, SHO and another)
34. Cr.MOP. No, 3-B/2017 (Qudratuilah v. Tariq Mahrnosod Khan, SHO. and another)
35. Cr.MOP. No, 5-B/2017 (Fazal Khan v. The State through Tairq Mahmood Khan, SHO)
36. Cr.MOP'. No, 6-B/2017 (Lamber Khan v, Muhammad Navvaz Khan, ASI).
37. Cr.MOP. No, 7-B/2017 (Khalid Khan v. The State).
38. Cr.MOP. No, 44-B/2017 (Samar Gul v. The State),
2. In these petitions following questions of law are involved, therefore, the same are being decided through this consolidated judgment: Whether the vehicles in question are Non-custom Paid and these were brought to the settled area in violation of the Customs Laws?
Whether in presence of Customs Act, 1969 as well as judgment of the apex Court in Criminal Petitions No, 802. of 2015 and 22 of 2017, the Non-Custom Paid vehicles can be released on Superdari?
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the permanent residents of North Waziristan Agency and are now residing' in Bannu as Temporary Dislocated Persons (TDPs) That the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Home & Tribal Affairs Department, vide Circular No, SO(AR)/HD/1 8/NCP/2014/KC, dated 3rd October, 2014, approved a mechanism/policy for Non- Custom Paid (NCP) vehicles of TDPs, of North Waziristan Agency in wake of Military operation "Zarb-e-Azb" and circulated the same in different Provincial Government Departments. That in pursuance of the circular, referred to above, some vehicles were provisionally registered and allowed to be plied in Districts Bannu, D.I. Khan and Lakki Marwat, while other were not registered.
The Customs Officers/Officials intercepted some of the vehicles while crossing the Kohat Tunnel, and it transpired that no duty and taxes leviable on such imported vehicles were paid, which culminated in registration of FIRs, Some of the vehicles were apprehended by the local police and Excise & Taxation Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the cases were accordingly registered.
4. Some of the petitioners filed petitions before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for release of the vehicles in question on Superdari, which were allowed. Not contended with the same, the State filed criminal revisions before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and the learned revisional Court through separate orders, recalled the orders passed by the Maga Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove their ownership in support of their contentions, therefore, they filed the quashment petitions, while some of the petitioners invoked :the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for release of the vehicles in questions claiming to be its lawful owners and its importation under the circular, referred to above.
5. In pursuance of the order of this Court the Custom Department furnish their para-wise comments raising therein many factual and legal objections:
6. It is, inter aliaagued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are Temporary Dislocated Persons (TDPs) and in order to facilitate the TDPS, the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Home & Tribal Affairs Department vide circular No, SO (AR)/HD/1 8/NCP/2014/KC, dated 3rd October, 2014, approved the mechanism/policy for Non-Custom Paid (NCP) vehicles of TDPs of North Waziristan Agency. Therefore interception and apprehension of such vehicles by the Custom Officials, Police and Excise & Taxation Department is illegal, without lawful authority and without jurisdiction and they are entitled for its custody.
7. As against that, the learned counsel representing the Customs Department, A A G. appearing on behalf of Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Excise & Taxation Department assisted by, their representatives strenuously opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, only the Federal Government is competent to grant exemption from payment of custom duties chargeable thereon and the circular issued by the Provincial Government offends Section 19 of the ibid Act, therefore, seizure of the vehicles in question and registration of FIRs by the Government functionaries are legal; that neither the vehicles have lawfully been imported into settled area nor the taxes and duties leviable thereon been paid; that the learned Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, Additional Sessions Judge and High Court' have got no power to release such vehicles on Superdari.
8. Arguments heard and record perused.
9. Perusal of the record reflects that the vehicles in question are of foreign origin and were seized by the Customs Officials, Police and Excise & Taxation Department being Non-Custom Paid. The petitioners have failed to produce any documentary evidence showing their lawful import in the settled areas.
10. The question emerging for consideration of this Court, as formulated above, is whether the vehicles seized have been lawfully imported and the persons importing them have paid the duties and taxes leviable thereon and whether the circular under which some vehicles were provisionally registered offends Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 or not, the answer to the question is obviously in affirmative. It will be advantageous to reproduce Section 19 of the Act ibid, which reads as under: "19. General power to exempt from customs duties.---[(1)] The [Federal Government], subject to such conditions, limitations or restrictions, if any, as it thinks fit to impose, may, by Notification in the official Gazette, exempt any goods imported into, or exported from, 'Pakistan or into or from any specified port or station or area therein, from the whole or any part of the customs-duties chargeable thereon [and may remit fine, penalty, charge or any other amount recoverable under this Act.] [(2)T A Notification issued under sub-section (1) Shall be effective from the day specified therein, notwithstanding the fact that the issue of the official Gazette in which such Notification appears is published at any time after that day.] [(3)] Notwithstanding 'anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, including but not limited to the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 (XII of 1992)., and notwithstanding any decision or judgment of any forum, authority or Court, no person shall, in the absence of a notification by% the Federal Government published in the official gazette expressly granting and affirming exemption from or refund of customs duty on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel 'or on account of any correspondence or admission or promise or commitment or concessionary order made or understanding given whether in writing or otherwise, by any government department or authority.]
11. A bare reading of this Section reveals that the notification regarding exemption of any goods imported into Pakistan can only be issued by the Federal Government. There are certain other provisions of Customs Act which empower the Central Board of Revenue also to issue certain notifications in matters pertaining to the delegated legislation aid the exemptions and the scope and extent thereof under Section 19 of he Customs Act, 1969 are exclusively within the competence of Federal Government.
12. Admittedly, the vehicle in question were neither brought into settled area in accordance with the provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1969.nor the custom duty nor any duties and taxes leviable thereon were 'paid by its importers, hence, neither the High . Court, nor Sessions Judges nor Judicial Magistrate have the power to release such 'vehicles on superdari. These vehicles are/ subject to departmental adjudication as envisaged under the Customs' Act, 1969.
13. We are also: fortified by, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal'
Petitions No, 802 of 2015 and 22 of 2016; where identical questions were .answered by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and held that the seizure of vehicles not lawfully imported and the persons importing them have 'not paid the duties and taxes leviable Thereon, is legal.
14. For what has been discussed above we find no substance in the petition's in hand, therefore the same are hereby dismissed alongwith connected Contempt of Court Petitions.