JUDGMENT: IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.--1. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order dated 22nd August, 1988 passed by Mr. G.A. Jahangir, Additional Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, whereby he upheld the confiscation of five ranits of gold of foreign origin owned and possessed by the petitioner on 1st August; 1983.
2. Briefly, the facts are that on a secret information received by the S.H.O. Police Station Qilla Gujjar Singh Lahore the raiding party conducted personal search of the petitioner on 1st August, 1983 and five rallies weighing fifty tolas of foreign origin gold were recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner failed to furnish any evidence of lawful possession before the raiding party.
Consequently, the gold was seized and F.I.R. No. 142, dated 1st August, 1983, under section 156 (1) (8) of the Customs Act, 1969, was registered against the petitioner with Police Station Barki, Lahore. This was followed by a Show-Cause Notice dated 2nd November, 1983 issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice why he should not be penalized and seized goods be not confiscated under Clauses (8), (77) and (89) of section 156 (1) and section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 15th November, 1983 stating therein that the Show Cause Notice was time barred and no valid reasons have, been assigned for extending the period of two months. On merits, it was pleaded that the disputed gold was of Pakistan origin, in that the bars were easily available in open market. The Deputy Collector, vide his order dated 20th November, 1985, after going through the record and providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, recorded a finding that the seized goods were of foreign origin and there was no evidence of its lawful import in the country. He also took the view that the issuance of Show Cause Notice was within the period specified under Section 168 of the Customs Act, which had been fully met in this case. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal, which was also dismissed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise and Land Customs, Northern Zone, Lahore vide order dated 27th February, 1986. The revision petition filed by the petitioner also met the same fate, by order dated 28th July, 1988 of the learned Additional Secretary, Central Board of Revenue Government of Pakistan. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issuance of a valid show-cause notice under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969, is a condition precedent for adjudication purposes. In the instant case, the goods were seized on 1st August, 1983 while the show-cause notice was issued on 2nd November; 1983, that is to say, beyond the statutory period of two months. Complete answer to this plea is given in the comments filed by the Collector, Customs, which reads as follows:-- "In this case seizure of the contraband gold was effected on 1st August, 1983. The initial period for issue of Show Cause Notice was to expire on 30th September, 1983. However, extension for issue of Show Cause Notice was obtained on 28th September, 1983, before the expiry of initial period of two months. Thus the Show Cause Notice dated 2nd November, 1983, so issued before the expiry of extended period was well in time within the meaning of section 168 (2) of the Customs Act, 1969.
This argument was duly met during the adjudication proceedings by the Respondent No. 1."
5. The record of the impugned proceedings produced before the Court also shows that the Collector Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore by order dated 28th September, 1983 granted the extension of two months period for the purpose of completion of documents. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner was barred by time or suffered from any legal infirmity.
It is next contended that during the course of adjudication proceedings under sections 168 and 180 of the Customs Act, the Customs Authorities failed to prove by recording evidence that the gold recovered from the accused were smuggled goods. The contention has no force. The Customs Officers are not legally bound to formally record evidence and prove facts like a civil court. In the instant case, in reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner admitted the gold recovered from him as his property and bearing foreign marks thereon. The onus was, therefore, on him to show that he had reasonable belief that the gold recovered from him was not smuggled. The petitioner failed to discharge this onus before the Customs Authorities and, therefore, such a grievance cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. Refer Muhammad Sarwar v. Govt. of Pakistan (1988 PTCL 1988 CL. 172), wherein the same principle of law was enunciated, which I respectfully follow.
7. When confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs vs. Iqbal Hussain (Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-98 of 1976, decided on 24th May, 1976). The aforesaid judgment is distinguishable, inasmuch as, it was found in that case that the Customs Authorities illegally seized the gold which melted during the proceedings.
In view of the above, I hold that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and therefore, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with costs.