S. M. ATTIQUE SHAH, J.- Through, instant Custom Reference filed under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969; the petitioner has challenged the impugn ed judgment dated 18.11.2019, rendered by learned Customs Appellate Tribunal Peshawar Bench, seeking opinion of this Court on the questions of law so formulated in memorandum of the Reference.
2. In essence, on 27.04.2019 the FC troops detained contraband goods alongwith vehicle bearing registration No. TLY-029 from possession of respondent at Torkham CP; for alleged violation of the provisions of Customs Act. On 11.08.2016; while entering into Pakistan from Afghanistan, the offending goods alongwith the vehicle in question were seized under Sections 2(S)(1), 16 and 157(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(1)(3) of Imports & Exports (Control) Act 1950 punishable under Section 156(1) Clause (8) & (89) of the Customs Act 1969; that after completion of relevant proceedings, case papers were submitted to the concerned authority for adjudication.
Thereafter , Show Notice C. No. ADC (Adj)132/Khyber Rifles/2019/614 dated 05.07.2019 was issued to respondent No 1; in order to explain that why the seized goods and conveyance shall not be confiscated for violation of the relevant laws. After submission of reply , worthy Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Islamabad Camp Office, Custom House, Peshawar , passed an order of confiscation of seized goods; as well as the Vehicle bearing Registration No. TLY-029; being used in the transportation of smuggling of goods, vide order in original No.266 of 2019. However , in view of SRO 499/09 dated 13.06.2009 read with Section 181 of Customs Act, 1969 the rightful owner was given option with a warning to redeem the vehicle on payment of fine @ 20% of the customs value of the vehicle. Aggrieved from the same, respondent filed appeal before the Custom Appellate Tribunal Peshawar Bench, which was partially allowed vide Cust-No.172/PB/2019 dated 18.11.2019; thereby modifying the redemption fine of 20% on the value of the offending goods. Dissatisfied from the same, petitioner has filed instant Custom Reference for determination of the questions of law so formulated therein.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Record depicts that FC Troops at Torkham CP intercepted a Long Vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. TLY- 029; being driven by respondent; while entering into Pakistan from Afghanistan and; upon search led to the recovery of foreign origin motor oil and welding rods; for which respondent failed to produce any valid documents qua its lawful possession or legal import; therefore, after completion of relevant procedure, the seized goods were outrightly confiscated by learned Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Peshawar vide Order in Original dated 12.07.2019 and; the vehicle in question was also confiscated under Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 (Act); however , option was given to the respondent to redeem the vehicle on payment of fine @ 20% of the customs value of the said vehicle, which was modified by worthy Appellate Tribunal; after hearing the appeal so filed by the respondent; thereby giving option to redeem the vehicle on payment of fine @ of 20% on the value of the of fending goods.
5. Now the precise question for the deter mination of this Court is that whether 20% redemption fine is to be paid upon the value of the offending goods, as held by the Worthy Tribunal or the same would be payable upon the value of the vehicle.
6. The Goods, as well as, the conveyance carrying it, when enters into the territorial jurisdiction of the country in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 (Act) are liable to outright confiscation in view of the provisions of Section 157 of the ibid Act; for ready reference the same are reproduced below .
"Extent of confiscation--
(1) Confiscation of any goods under this Act includes any package in which they are found, and all other contents thereof
(2) Every conveyance of whatever kind used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under this Act shall also be liable to confiscation: Provided that, where conveyance liable to confiscation has been seized by an officer of customs, the appropriate officer may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed by rules, order its release, pending the adjudication of the case involving its confiscation if the owner of the conveyance furnishes him with a sufficient guarantee from a scheduled bank for the due production of the conveyance at any time and place it is required by the appropriate of ficer to be produced.
(3) Confiscation of any vessel under this Act includes her tackle, apparel and furniture."
7. Albeit, the provisions of Section 181 of the Act, empower the adjudicating officer to provide an option to the owner of the goods to pay such fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods as the officer think fit; after confiscation of the goods.
The provisions of Section 181 of the Act are reproduced below for ready reference:- "Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods: Whenever an order for the confiscatio n of goods is passed under this Act, the officer passing the order may give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the goods such fine as the officer thinks fit.
Explanation. Any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods imposed under this section shall be in addition to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods, and of any penalty that might have been imposed in addition to the confiscation of goods.
Provided that the Board may, by an order, specify the goods or class of good s where such option shall not be given.
Provided further that the Board may, by an order , fix the amount of fine which, in lieu of confiscation, shall be imposed on any goods or class of goods imported in violation of the provisions of section 15 or of a notification issued under section 16, or any other law for the time being in force"
8. The said provision has also clearly empowered the Board to fix the amount of fine which, in lieu of confiscation, shall be imposed on any goods or class of goods imported in violation of the provisions of section 16, or any other law for the time being in force and; the Board had issued SRO No 499(1)/2009 dated 13th June 2009 to that effect; which is reproduced below for ready reference: - S.R.O.499W/2009 DA TED 13-06-2009.- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 181 of the Customs Act,1969 (IV of 1969), and in supersession of its Notification No. S.R.O. 487(1)/ 2007 dated 9th June, 2007, the Federal Board of Revenue is pleased to direct that no option shall be given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of the following goods or classes of goods, namely:
(a) smuggled goods falling under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969);
(b) lawfully registered conveyance including packages and containers found carrying smuggled goods in false cavities or being used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offending goods under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act,1969 (IV of 1969); or Provided that in respect of the following goods or classes of goods where an option is given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of offences specified in column
(2) of the Table below shall be at a rate specified in column (3) of that Table and shall be over and above the customs-duties and other taxes and penalties imposed under the relevant law , namely:- S.No. Description Redemption fine on custom value.
(1) (2) (3)
1. Of fences related to misdeclaration of :- a) ............................... b) ............................... c) ............................... d) ............................... e) ............................... f) ............................... g) ...............................20%
2. Other Of fences related to:- a) ............................... b) ............................... c) ............................... d) ............................... e) ...............................20%
(f) lawfully registered conveyance including packages and containers, not covered under clause (b) of the preamble of this notification, found carrying of fending goods under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969)..............................20%
9. keeping in view the language of section 181 read with SRO No 499; it clearly manifests that option is available to the owner of lawfully registered vehicle used in the smuggling of goods to release his vehicle upon payment of fine @ 20% of the value of the vehicle in lieu of its confiscation; being an independent offence.
10. Certainly , the vehicle in question is a lawfully registered vehicle; albeit, it had been used for carrying the offending goods in violation of the provisions of Sections 2(s) and 16 of the Act read with Section 3 (1) (3) Import and Export Act, 1950 and; therefore, under clause (f) of the ibid SRO, the same is liable to be redeemed upon payment of fine @ 20% of the value of vehicle in question. As earlier discussed the provisions of S.157 of the Act are clear enough; which manifestly provides that the offending goods along with the packages and; the conveyance as well, shall be liable to confiscation. The very purpose and object of the law is to deter and discourage smuggling of the of fending goods by all means, as it adversely af fects the entire economy of the Country .
11. So far as, the contention of learned counsel representing the respondent that the offending goods are worth rupees fourteen lac; whereas, the value of the vehicle has been determined as rupees thirty-two lac and; therefore, redemption fine, as imposed by the Worthy Tribunal is proportionate to the value of the offending goods, is concerned; suffice it to say that both, the offending goods and the conveyance as well, are liable to confiscation independently in terms of the provisions of the S.157 of the Act and; likewise, SRO No 499 (1)/2009 dated 13th June 2009; issued under the provisions of S 181 of the Act, had expressly provided for release of the goods and conveyance independently from one another upon payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. Therefore, the ibid contention is misconceived. Indeed, offences under the Customs Act are social and economic in nature and; the same are standing on a graver footing qua punishment, in order to curb the menace of smuggling.
12. It is settled principle of law that while interpreting a taxing statute, Courts must have construed the same in the light of what is clearly expressed. Neither , any implied meaning could be added to it; nor, the expressed meaning could be excluded from thereto, at the time of its interpretation; which clearly shows that there is no room for equity in the interpretation of a taxing statute.
13. In view of above, instant reference is answered in positive. The judgement of the Worthy Tribunal is set aside; Order in Original of the Adjudicating Authority is restored and; it is held that conv eyance could only be released upon payment of redemption fine @ 20 % of its value. Copy of this judgement is forwarded to the worthy Appellate Tribunal for information.