1. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--The above petition is directed against orders dated 19-3-1984,30-4-1984 and 21-6-1984 passed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively.
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of above petition are that on 7-10-1983, a truck bearing No. QAB-119 left Quetta for Karachi and was allegedly found abandoned near the Octroi Post, Super Highway, Karachi, at about 4.30 a.m. On 10-10-1983. It is the case of the petitioners that after coming to know about the seizure of the above truck and the goods lying therein they contacted the Deputy Collector of Customs. Eventually a show-cause notice dated January 1984 was issued to petitioner No. 2 and one Nasrullah by respondent No. 2. After that respondent No. 2 took up the matter for hearing, wherein petitioner No. I was represented by an Advocate. His averment was that he had purchased 80 bags of betel-nuts on 5-10-1983 from Kako & Co. Baluchistan, a Government auctioneer on cash purchase basis and that he transported the same to Karachi on 7-10-1983 against Btlty No. 786 of M/s Azad Zamindar Goods Transport Company, Quetta through truck No. QAB-119. However, respondent No. 3 by his impugned order dated 19-3-1984 ordered the confiscation of the betel-nuts under clauses (8) and (89) of section 159(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 and also ordered the confiscation of truck under section 157 (2) of the Act, on the ground that petitioner No. 2 was unable to establish his title as the agreement of purchase produced by him was vague. Against the above order both the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 30-4-1984 with the modification that respondent No. 2 allowed option to the owner of the truck to redeem it on payment of fine amounting to 50% equal to the valuation of the seized goods. Against the above order the petitioner filed revision which was dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 21-6-1984. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the above order, have filed the above petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Rashid Munir Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has urged as follows:--
(1) That respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the subject matter of the seizure as the value of the same was more than a lac of rupees.
(2) That in any case the official respondents have failed to apply their minds on a very important piece of evidence namely, the receipt for the purchase of 80 bags of betel-nuts from the Government auctioneer namely, Kako & Co. Transit Commission Agent.
4. Mr. Abul Khair Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents has contended that the petitioners had not raised any plea as to the jurisdiction before the official respondents and that factually respondent No. 2 had the requisite jurisdiction and thirdly notice was issued to Nasrullah and Wadood and that from the seized truck a bilty of goods transporter New Muslim Goods Transport Co. Loralai was found wherein 410 crates of apples were shown Adverting to the first submission by Mr. Rashid Munir Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 did not have the requisite jurisdiction, it will suffice to observe that this point was not agitated by the petitioners either before the respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3 or respondent n No. 4, nor this point was raised in the original petition which was filed in November 1984. The above point has been for first time introduced in March 1988 when the amended petition was filed. In our view, even question of jurisdiction which may need the production of requisite notifications is to be raised at the earliest opportunity. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the above objection.
5. As regards second submission we rind that the above receipt issued by Kako & Co. Transit Commission Agent, which is issued in the name of petitioner No. 1 has been referred to in the original order as well as in the appellate order but the g same has not been dilated upon. No reason has been assigned as to why this should not be accepted as a piece of evidence. It was open to the official respondents to have asked the petitioners to summon the Government auctioneer to substantiate the above receipt which was not done. In our view, since above material piece of evidence on record has not been considered by the official respondents, the case is fit for remand to respondent No. 2.
6. We, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned orders as being without lawful authority but would remand the case to respondent No. 2 with the direction to allow the petitioners to produce evidence in support of the above documents of the betel-nuts and to produce any other evidence which they may wish to produce.
7. H.B.T./L-35/K