1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J.-- Petitioner Muhammad Hayat was arrested by a party of Pakistan Coast Guards on or about 12-11-1983, and at the time of arrest, he was found in possession of 9 bundles of imported cloth and, miscellaneous merchandise. Such merchandise according to Mr. Sohail Muzaffar consists of 9 V.C.Rs,, some Television sets etc. It is stated in the Petition that these goods have been imported from Dubai on two steam boats. Such steam boats touched Gawadar Port, where the petitioner after coming out from the Port was arrested by Officer of Pakistan Coast Guards for the purposes of contraband goods, or such goods, the import whereof was restricted. A show-cause notice was issued by the Deputy Collector of 'Customs in the Pakistan Coast Guards Office on 29-2-1984, wherein all such facts as formed the basis of this case were stated. The petitioner made a reply wherein he admitted his arrest and possession of imported cloth etc. He raised the plea that these goods were imported on the strength of some 'A' Forms which the Customs staff in Gawadar had requested him to use. On such basis he states that he imported the 9 bundles in question. It was further averred that actual duty was assessed and paid by him to the Customs Authorities. However, such receipts are not available, and have not been produced before us. On a reading of reply to the show-cause notice it would appear that the petitioner was mainly setting up a case of legal import on 'A' Form and payment of duty.
2. ' By an order, dated 2-4-1984 the Deputy Collector of Customs confiscated the goods outright and 8 vehicles which had been used for the purposes of transportation of the goods were also forfeited, but with an option to redeem the vehicles on payment of a fine of Rs,50,000 in lieu of confiscation.
3. An appeal was then filed before the Collector of Customs, who upheld the order of Deputy Collector in toto in regard to the confiscation of goods, but in regard to the vehicles, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs,45,000.
4. ' Mr. Sohail Muzaffar has mainly raised two contentions before us. Firstly, that import was lawfully made on the basis of 'A' Form and secondly, that duty has been paid. He also avers that Pakistan Coast Guards has no jurisdiction to seize these goods.
5. ' In regard to 'A' Form it is conceded before us, that these Forms are meant for use of such passengers who come from outside Pakistan, so that they could either use them for the purposes of declaring their unaccompanied baggage, or make purchases on the Duty Free Shop after landing in Pakistan. There is nothing before us that any 'A' Form was used for the purposes of this import. What is more, that one person cannot possibly obtain more than one 'A' Form. Mr. Sohail Muzaffar however, states that 9 'A' Forms were delivered to the petitioner by the Customs Officer, but to that extent there is no material on record. The order of the Customs Authorities during adjudication proceedings does not even show that the petitioner had led any evidence on the point.
6. The next contention of Mr. Sohail Muzaffar is that duty has been paid to the Customs. Even in such regard there is total absence of evidence, and all that is stated in reply which the petitioner made in respect of show-cause notice was that when he was arrested by Pakistan Coast Guards, some Customs Officer came there and asked him to deliver the receipts showing payment of duty to them, so that they might be able to get the goods of the petitioner released. Reference in that context be made to paragraph 3 of Annexure 'F' appearing on the record. Besides what is stated no evidence was available on record of Deputy Collector of Customs or Collector of Customs to support this contention of the petitioner. Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, however, then makes a grievance that the Customs Authorities did not allow him to lead any evidence, but evidence on that point no material has been placed before us, to show that evidence of the petitioner has been shut out. It is therefore, not possible to assail such finding of fact recorded concurrently by the Deputy Collector of Customs and Collector of Customs in regard to payment of duty.
7. The next contention of Mr. Sohail Muzaffar is that the Coast Guards has no jurisdiction in the matter.
8. Coast Guards is an organization that is engaged in prevention of smuggling. In fact they have jurisdiction throughout Pakistan within the area of 5 miles from Pakistan coast. It is admitted case that the petitioner was arrested at or near Gawadar Port. In any case the Coast Guards Authorities sent the case to the Deputy Collector of Customs for adjudication purposes. Such adjudication has been made by the Deputy Collector of Customs and an appeal has also been heard by Collector of Customs. It would thus appear that the Coast Guard Authorities had merely arrested the petitioner and seized the goods. Thereafter, all the actions under the Customs Act have been taken by the properly constituted Authority viz the Customs Officers. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Coast Guards Authorities have acted in excess of their powers.
9. ' We see no substance in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.