JUDGMENT SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-l. This appeal with leave is directed against judgment dated 21st August, 1985 of Division Bench of High Court of Sindh in Constitutional Petition No. 158 of 1982, whereby it is declared that search and seizure of goods were without lawful authority and orders impugned in that constitutional petition were not in accordance with law and therefore of no legal effect. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-- On 2nd January, 1981 Customs Officers raided and searched premises of Ittehad Re-Rolling Mills situated at L-10/C, Block No. 21 Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, and seized under section 168 of Customs Act, 1969, the following goods:- "96 ingots of refined tin of Malaysian origin each weighing 42 Kgs. 102 ingots of refined tin "Wattan Metal" each weighing 29/30 Kgs. With marks of Bunder Khomeni."
2. Investigation revealed that ingots were supplied by Lala Khan, stored by Yaseen Baig Manager with permission and authority of partner. Mohammad Mehfooz (respondent in this appeal before us). Show-cause notices were issued to all the three persons named above and hearing took place on 22nd March, 1981. In written statement as well as during the hearing, objection was taken that seizure was illegal and goods were not concealed and were importable under free list. Collector of Customs (Preventive) vide his order dated 9th May, 1981 held that seizure was made after compliance with provisions of the Customs Act and respondents before him failed to produce any evidence of lawful import of the seized goods. Consequently he confiscated seized goods under section 156(90) of the Customs Act, 1969 by giving option to the owners to pay a fine of Rs. 2,50,000 in lieu of confiscation. Option was left open for 30 days. Penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 was imposed on Muhammad Mehfooz.
3. Against the order of Collector of Customs mentioned above, appeal was filed before Central Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dated 22nd September, 1981 to the limited extent that penalty was reduced from Rs. 2,50,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 and fine in lieu of confiscation was allowed to remain intact. Stand was taken on behalf of Customs Authorities that seizure had proper legal cover and search- warrant was not obtained from the Magistrate as contemplated under section 162 of the Customs Act for the reason that Assistant Collector concerned was satisfied that there was danger of removal of goods, if he had applied for search- warrant, hence he made the raid without search-warrant as he was competent to do so under section 163 of the Customs Act and further he noted such reason for such action on page 4 of the Customs House File No. SIB 104/81 before making the raid. 4. . Respondent Muhammad Mehfooz not satisfied with the order of Central Board of Revenue mentioned above, filed Constitutional Petition in the High Court challenging orders of search, seizure and confiscation of subject goods and imposition of penalty on him on many grounds. It would be pertinent to mention here that when Constitutional Petition was filed, a revision application filed by Muhammad Mehfooz before Ministry of Finance- was pending which was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 22nd November, 1984. Muhammad Mehfooz was allowed to amend the petition and impugned the order passed in revision as well. During the hearing of the Constitutional Petition, on behalf of Muhammad Mehfooz petitioner in the High Court, following five contentions were raised:-- "(1) That the Officers of Customs (Preventive) who carried out the search under the direction of respondent 1 had no territorial jurisdiction. (2) That the search and seizure of the goods without warrants and/or without complying the provisions of section 163 of the Act was illegal. (3) That no notice as required under section 171 of the Act was served on the petitioner. (4) That the burden of proof that the goods were unlawfully imported was on the respondents and not on the petitioner. (5) That no action was taken against Lai Khan who had supplied the goods to the petitioner although a show-cause notice was also issued to him."
5. After hearing the Advocates of both parties and consideration of a large number of Notifications, High Court held that there was substance in the objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction raised in first point. On the second point that search and seizure of goods were illegal and there were no warrants and section 163 of the Customs Act was not complied with, finding of the High Court is positive. On the third point that no notice was served under section 171 of the Customs Act, it was held that this question could not be gone into as it would require recording of evidence. On the fourth point as to on which party would lie burden of proof that subject goods were unlawfully imported, it was held by the High Court that since some of the goods bore markings of Port Khomeni in Iran burden was on the petitioner in Constitutional Petition to prove that goods were lawfully imported and duty was paid thereupon. On the last point that no action was taken against Lai Khan who supplied the goods to the petitioner it was held by the High Court that petitioner would succeed or fail on the strength of his own case and not on the basis of non-action against Lai Khan. Ultimately High Court allowed the petition and declared search and seizure of goods to be without lawful authority and orders impugned therein were held tb have been passed not in accordance with law as such haying no legal effect.
6. In the Supreme Court, vide order dated 15th April, 1986, leave has been granted to examine the scope and powers of Customs Authorities under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 and on the point of interpretation of various Notifications issued by Board of Revenue under section 3 of the Customs Act. A 17. Now so far powers under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 are concerned, they are to be read alongwith section 162 of the Customs Act. Requirement of section 162 of the Customs Act is that on application by a Gazetted Officer of Customs, in which grounds are stated, search-warrant is to be obtained from the Magistrate having local jurisdiction and such warrant shall be executed in the same way and will have the same effect as is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This requirement of issue of search-warrant by the Magistrate can be dispensed with under section 163 of the Customs Act, which empowers Assistant Collector of Customs or any other officer of like rank to make search without warrant if he is satisfied that there is danger of removal of goods if search-warrant is obtained and further he has to record such reasons.
Requirement of giving reasons is stated in sub-section (1) of section 163 of the Customs Act, which is reproduced as under:- Whenever any officer of Customs not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Customs or any other officer of like rank duly employed for the prevention of smuggling has reasonable grounds for believing- that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act are concealed or kept in any place and that there is a danger that they may be removed before a search can be effected under section 162, he may, after preparing a statement in writing of the grounds of his belief and of the goods, documents or things for which search is to be made, search or cause search to be made for such goods, documents or things in that place."
8. Here the emphasis is that statement to be prepared by the Customs Officer in writing is to include grounds of his belief with regard to danger he apprehends that the goods may be removed before search can be made on the basis of search- warrant and secondly about the goods or documents or things for. Which the search is to be made. In the instant case, it appears in the order dated 22nd September, 1981 passed by Central Board of Revenue that Assistant Collector concerned had recorded the grounds for his belief for making search and seizure in the note made by him on page 4 of Customs House File No. SIB 104/81. In the record of the High Court in Constitutional Petition there is counter-affidavit of S.A.K. Saifi, Senior Law Officer (at page 231) in which in paragraph- 3(iii) it is stated that search was conducted under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 as there was no time for obtaining search-warrant under section 162 of the said Act and photocopy of the statement of grounds of search under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 is produced as marked R-l (at page No. 243). It reads as under:- "Statement of grounds of search under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969. Whereas credible information has been placed before me that foreign smuggled refined tin slabs and other contraband goods are stored in the premises of M/s. Ittehad Re-Rolling Mills L-10-C Block 21, Federal 'B' Area Karachi, it is not expedient to obtain a search-warrant as required under section 162 of the Customs Act, 1969 as the goods may be removed from the premises. I, Afzal Ameer Khan, Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) under the powers conferred under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 order the search of the said premises. (Sd.) Afzal Ameer Khan Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) 2nd January, 1981."
9. Perusal of the statement of grounds reproduced above clearly shows that grounds for belief in support of danger as such were not' mentioned specifically as is required under section 163 of the Customs Act. This is a statutory requirement and there is legislative wisdom behind it which is to the effect that ordinarily a place is to be searched only after search- warrant is obtained from the Magistrate as is contemplated under the preceding section of the Customs Act and only in extraordinary cases this section can be dispensed with as is permissible under section 163 of the Customs Act but then grounds are to be stated by the Customs Officer who is allowed this facility for his belief and decision in not obtaining the search warrant. Het. Must state the grounds which justify apprehension of danger of removal of goods. For example, information is received from such and such person .That the party concerned has taken steps or is about to take steps for removal of goods and if search-warrant is obtained the same will consume time or the Magistrate is not available, hence there is no other way but to go for the search without warrant. By providing such statutory requirement, the intention of legislature is to provide safe-guard against mala fide interference with rights of citizens in respect of property and against violation of right of privacy. In the instant case in the statement of grounds reproduced above, reasons are not stated as to why and what danger was apprehended for removal of goods and it is not enough simply to say that "it is not expedient to obtain search- warrant". We are, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the High Court on the ground that search and seizure were defective and . Improper on account of noncompliance with the provisions of sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act.
10. Another point in the same context is whether Customs Authorities had territorial jurisdiction to make search and seizure at the place situate in Federal 'B' Area. Preamble of Customs Act, 1969 shows that this Act is to consolidate and Famend the law relating to the levy and collection of Customs duties and to provide for other allied matters. The prime object of this Act is to effectively check smuggling and it is also a source of revenue. While construing fiscal statute one must read words and interpret them in the light of what is clearly G expressed and should not rely upon meanings which are not expressed but are implied. In this Act definitions are given in the section 2 thereof. "Customs airport" is defined to mean any airport declared under section 9 to be a Customs-airport. "Customs area" is defined to mean the limits of the Customs station specified under section 10 including any area in which imported goods or goods for export are ordinarily kept before clearance by the customs authorities. "Customs port" is defined to mean any place declared under section 9 to be a Customs port. "Customs-station" is defined to mean any Customs-port, Customs-airport or any land Customs-station. Section 9 of the Customs Act provides that Board may, by Notification in the official Gazette, declare places which alone shall be Customs- ports, Customs-airports, land Customs-stations, routes by which alone goods or any class of goods may pass from any land frontier, places which alone shall be ports for carrying on coastal trade with any specified customs ports in Pakistan.
11. Section 3 of the Customs Act empowers the Board to appoint by Notification in the official Gazette a Collector of Customs, an Assistant Collector of Customs or any other officer of Customs with any other designation in relation to any area specified in the Notification. Under section 4 of the said Act, powers and duties of the officers of Customs are specified and conferred upon them.
12. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants before us that Customs Authorities for the purpose of search and seizure relied upon Notification No. 53, dated 2nd October, 1953 whereby Central Government was pleased to appoint Collector of Customs to be the Chief Customs Officer for all ports in the Federal area and to be Chief Customs Officer in the said area. This Notification was amended by Notification SRO 167(R), dated lst September, 1961 whereby "Federal Area" was substituted by "Karachi Division" and "Chief Customs Collector" was substituted by "Customs Collector for such ports". Now it is to be seen as to what are the limits of ports in Karachi Division. In this context, reference can be made to Notification No. 6315, dated 26th August, 1987, in which limits of Port of Karachi are specified. Subsequently, by another Notification No. 108(l)/83, dated 12th February, 1983, Central Board of Revenue specified the following limits of Customs- port of Karachi, namely; To the North A line drawn from a point on the ridge dividing the harbour break-water from the Arabian Sea, nine miles N.W. From Manora Point, along the high water mark ordinary spring tides to boundary pillar No. 44 at the head of Soti Creek, and thence along a line demarcated at the angles by masonry pillars numbered 43 around Khuda Village to 32 on the Harris Road, and from thence along the Western edge of Harris Road to the North-East corner of the Native Jetty where it crosses the M.A. Jinnah Road at the Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan Road at the North-East and of the Railway bridge and on to Boundary Pillar No. 2. From Boundary Pillar No. 2 round Scandal Point and Bath Island up to Boundary Pillar No. 24 on the Western edge of the Clifton Road. To the East- A line draw from Boundary Pillar No. 24 on Clifton Road last abovementioned to Boundary Pillar No. 26 North of Clifton and thence to the shore, and of Clifton Pier and thence along the high water line on the beach to a point 3- 1/4 miles S.E. Of Clifton. To the South- A line drawn from the point last abovementioned on Clifton Beach running in a S.W. By W-l/4 W, direction to a point four miles S. By 1/4 E, from Manora break-water, and from thence along a line running in N.W. 3/4 W. Direction to a point two miles out at sea S.W. 1/2 from the point first mentioned on the ridge dividing the Harbour breakwater from the Arabian Sea. To the West- A line drawn from the point last mentioned above running in a N.E.1/2 N. Direction to the starting point on the ridge abovementioned, nine miles from Manora Point.''
13. Perusal of the Notification reproduced above clearly shows that Federal 'B' Area in which the raid was made and subject goods were seized is not included within the limits of Port of Karachi. There is no doubt about the fact that appointment of Collector of Customs, Deputy Collector of Customs, Assistant Collector of Customs or other Officers of Customs can have jurisdiction only in port area and not in entire Karachi.
14. There is Notification No. 57, dated 2nd October, 1953 which is issued under section 9 of the Sea Customs Act providing as under:-- "The Collector and Assistant Collectors of Customs, the Chief Inspector, Preventive Service, all Preventive Inspectors and Officers and Wharfingers stationed at Karachi or at the Outport of Bram Hyderi are required to prevent smuggling and are authorised to exercise all the powers conferred by Chapter XVII of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, on Officers of Customs duly employed for the prevention of smuggling."
15. Notification No. 57, dated 2nd October, 1953 reproduced above, clearly shows that Officers mentioned therein have been given powers to prevent smuggling within their territorial jurisdiction which is confined to Port of Karachi.
16. Notification No. SRO 446(l)/74, dated 4th April, 1974 provides that powers and duties of Collector of Customs (Preventive) in relation to Customs- station in Karachi shall be limited to preventive organization at Customs Sea Port, Karachi, Keti Bunder, Shah Bunder, Sokhi Bunder, Port Mohammad Bin Qasim, Bram Hyderi and Customs Airport, Karachi and additionally the powers were given to Postal Appraisement Department and Export Appraisement. Even this Notification does not give powers to the Officers and authorities mentioned therein to act extra territorially.
17. Notifications referred above were produced before the High Court during the hearing of the Constitutional Petitions in connection with arguments whether Customs Authorities had jurisdiction to search an seize subject goods in the place situate in Federal 'B' Area Karachi or not. Notifications were considered in juxtaposition with powers mentioned under section 163 of the Customs Act with very heavy emphasis on the words................... "are concealed or kept in any place any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceedings in this Act are concealed or kept in any place." Contention was raised that "any place" in section 163 of the Customs Act gives very wide powers to the Officers of Customs to make search and seizure anywhere in the area of Karachi. High Court has very appropriately dealt with this contention with which we agree and relevant paragraph from the judgment on this point is reproduced as under:-- "In our opinion the word "any place" has to be confined to a place within their jurisdiction and not any place beyond their jurisdictions for a Customs Officer posted at Karachi could not seize te goods in any other country or in any other Province unless he was so authorised by law. In the present case the Customs Officer had jurisdiction to seize the goods from any place within their territorial jurisdiction and, if their jurisdiction was at the relevant time, confined to the Port of Karachi and other areas Notified then they could not lawfully search or seize the goods from places which were beyond their territorial jurisdiction. We may repeat that no other Notifications have been brought to our notice except Notification No. 53, dated 2nd October, 1953, as modified by the Notification No..S.R.O./67, dated lst September, 1967, and S.R.O. 446 (l)/74, dated 4th April, 1974, but these Notifications as already shown, are limited in their scope. Therefore, we find substance in the first point."
18. For facts and reasons stated above, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment of the High Court which is hereby maintained and appeal is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.