' NAIMUDDIN, J.-The petitioner claims to be an Iranian National. He consigned 189 bundles of clothes from Korea as per ship s. s. "Strathettrick" vide bills of lading Nos. CDKA-2,8 and 70, dated 11-7-1981, to Karachi in transit to Taftan, Iran. According to the petitioner 126 bundles out of 189 bundles were booked from Karachi to Zahidan by railway in-transit to Iran, in two railway Wagon Nos. C 54146 and 70967, vide Railway Receipt No, 25328, dated 26-9-1981. All 126 bundles of cloth reached destination in Iran. However, the remaining 63 bundles of cloth which were booked from Karachi to Zahidan in-transit to Iran in railway Wagon No, C-55167, vide Railway Receipt No, 25329, dated 30- 9-1981, were siezed by the Customs Officers at Taftan border on 25.8-1982, immediately before they could cross into Iran and later on confiscated by the order, dated 1-9-1983, passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Quetta, respondent 3. The reasons which weighed with respondent 3 for passing the order of confiscation of the goods are stated by him in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order which we may reproduce herein below- "I have however gone through the recorded facts of the case and the arguments made on behalf of the defendants. The learned counsel's statements that the goods were booked in transit is true.
But the permission of transit was initially granted by the Customs House under a belief that the transit permission issued by the Ministry of Commerce were legal documents. It was learnt subsequently that the transit permission given by the Ministry of Commerce to Ali Jahani, Yaqoob Alabhoro and Ali Asghar had been forged and fraudulently issued ( is comminuted vide Board's letter No, 1979-80/Cus/L & P/3(5), dated 18-3-1981. It was subsequently directed by Central Board of Revenue letter of even No,, dated 12-6-1982 that parties be proceeded against in terms of relevant provision of the Customs Act. The argument of the learned counsel therefore that the consignments had been validly book in transit is therefore a misrepresents of the facts The arguments that action of the Customs Authorities was illegal is not tenable against the background of the circumstances of the case as the 'mined counsel has erred in his presumption that everything was done according to law. From the record of the case it has been ascertained that 172 cortons of Polyster plain Georgette and Bobby Georgette were booked from Korea on Railway Wagons No, 54146/ 70967 and 55187/44 vide R. R. No, 25329, 25328 on 26-9-1981 and 30-9- 1981. In the meantime forgery was revealed and the goods were seized on 12-12-1982 at the time of hearing the learned counsel main plea was that since the consignment had been allowed transit permission the subsequent action by the department was illegal. It is however, not understandable as to how an act which itself is illegal can be justified on the basis of any subsequent action done in pursuance of a benefit. The argument is void ab initio.
"The real fact is that the party has failed to prove the validity of the import, in absence of any total documents. The circumstance of the case taken in their suggest that the party attempted to smuggle the goods into Pakistan in the garb of transit. The nature of transaction, the number of people involved and the origin of goods made the case extremely suspect, the above all the forged documents issued do not leave any margin of doubt."
2. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal with Collector of Customs, respondent 2 but he dismissed the same holding that the goods were being transited to Iran on forged transit permission, and therefore, the order passed by Deputy Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs, Quetta was correct on facts and the law.
3. Still aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision application with the Central Board of Revenue, respondent, 1, which also met the same fate as the appeal and in dismissing the revision application respondent 1 in the order observed that the transit facilities were obtained on forged permission and the petitioner had not given any reason to refute the charge.
4. The petitioner has therefore, filed this petition impugning all the three orders.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 3 it has been explained that all sorts of imports meant for transit to Iran need permission of the Ministry of Commerce of Pakistan and since the transit permission was a fake and forged one, therefore, the goods were seized in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969.
6. We have heard Mr. Ahmed H. Shah learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Mr. Shah has submitted that under section 129 of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the Act) no permission at all was required for transit of the goods to Iran. In view of this submission and for convenience of future reference we may first quote the provisions of section 129 of the Act, which reads as follows : "129. Transit of goods across Pakistan to a foreign territory.- Where any goods are entered for transit across Pakistan to a destination outside Pakistan, the appropriate officer may, subject to the provisions of the rules, allow the goods to be so transited without payment of the duties which would otherwise be chargeable on such goods."
8. Now, it is argued by Mr. Shah that the permission of the appropriate officer who would be the officer of Customs to whom functions to be performed under the Customs Act, 1969 have been assigned by or under the Act, would be necessary, if required by the rules and under the rules no such permission is required for the rules are silent on such requirement. In this regard reference is made to the Customs Export Transit Rules, 1974. There is no doubt that these rules are silents as to the permission to be allowed for transit of the goods from Pakistan to foreign country but we do not accept the argument of Mr. Shah that if the rules are silent then no permission of an appropriate officer would be required for that is the requirement of the provisions of section 129 itself. However, much emphasis is laid by Mr. Shah on the words 'subject to the provisions of the rules" used in section 129 of the Act. The said words in our opinion, mean that appropriate officer has to give permission in accordance with the provisions of the Rules if any, and that if the Rules are silent as to the giving of permission that would not mean that no permission would be required.
9. So far as permission granted by the Ministry of Commerce is concerned it has been found by the Customs Authorities to be forged. It is, therefore, clear that the goods were being transitted without any permission and breach of the law. Accordingly, the orders impugned in this petition are unexceptionable and do not require any interference in this constitutional jurisdiction.
10. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. However, in the circumstances of the case, leave the parties to bear their own costs.