' HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.---In this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan the petitioners M/s. Latif Trading Company have impugned the action of the respondents who have seized/confiscated a launch CC 'AL AMINI' having UAE Flag, Registration No,D/7/84 (hereinafter called (LAUNCH').
' The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are shipping agents of the said launch which arrived at Karachi Port on 2-6-1991 with Import Cargo CaRs, It sailed for Dubai on 5-6-1991 and then arrived at Karachi on 5-11-1991 for general repairs with nil cargo. While the said launch was at Karachi Port, the petitoners received two letters dated 2-2-1992 and 3-2-1992, requiring the petitioners to furnish within seven days information regarding Tonnage load capacity cubic measurement of the Cargo for one voyage to Dubai, the Authority under which "Prepaid" Bill of Lading can be issued, complete sailing schedule of registration etc. The petitioners furnished the required information and their `Nakhuda' also appeared before respondent No,2. Despite this the respondents detained the launch and permission for sailing and loading of the said launch was withheld with the result that the launch was unable to sail out of Karachi and has caused heavy losses to the petitioneRs, ' It was contended by Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Custom Authorities have acted in flagrant violation of the provisions contained in sections 157, 168 and 180 of the Customs Act, 1969 inasmuch as the launch was seized/confiscated in February, 1992 but no show-cause notice was served upon the petitioners or any person within the meaning of section 180 setting out grounds for proposed confiscatiOn or of giving any opportunity to them of making a representation in writing or of affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard. It would be advantageous, here to reproduce sections 157, 168 and 180 of the Customs Act, 1969, which read as under:-- "157. Extent of confiscation.--(1) Confiscation of any goods under this Act includes any Package in which they are found, and all other contents thereof.
(2) Every conveyance of whatever kind used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under this Act shall also be liable to confiscation: ' Provided that, where a conveyance liable to confiscation has been seized by an officer of Customs, the appropriate officer may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed by rules, order its release, pending the adjudication of the case involving its confiscation if the owner of the conveyance furnishes him with a sufficient guarantee from a scheduled bank for the due production of the conveyance at any time and place it is required by the appropriate officer to be produced.
(3) Confiscation of any vessel under this Act includes her tackle, apparel and furniture.
168. Seizure of things liable to confiscation.--(1) The appropriate officer may seize any goods liable to confiscation under this Act, and where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, he may serve on the owner of the goods or any person holding them in his possession or charge an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer.
(2) Where any goods are seized under subsection (1) and no show-cause notice in respect thereof is given under section 180 within two months of the seizere of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized: ' Provided that the aforesaid period of two months may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by the Collector of Customs by period not exceeding two months.
(3) The appropriate officer may seize any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful as evidence is any proceeding under this Act.
(4) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under subsection (3) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer of Customs.
180. Issue, of show-cause notice before confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty.--No order under this Act shall be passed for the confiscation of any goods or for imposition of any penalty on any person, unless the owner of the goods, if any, or such person--
(a) is informed in writing (or if the person concerned consents in writing orally) of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose the penalty;
(b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing (or if the person concerned indicates in writing) his preference for it orally, within such reasonable time as the appropriate officer may specify, against the proposed action, and
(c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard personally or through a counsel or duly authorised agent."
' It was contended by Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the two letters dated 2-2-1992 and 3-2-1992 related to information sought for by the respondents from the petitioners and cannot be treated as show-cause notices. This position was not disputed by Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari learned Deputy Attorney-General who however pointed out that the seizure/confiscation of the launch took place as the exporters/agents had claimed export rebate on goods exported wherein reference was made to the "launch" in question. A criminal case against them is pending in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation). He very frankly conceded that no show-cause notice as required under section 180 of the Customs Act, 1969 was served upon the petitioners or any other person in respect of the seizure or confiscation of the 'launch' in question. In fact respondents have admitted it in para. 5 of their comments.
' Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a letter dated 22-8-1992 sent by the petitioners wherein the petitioners had given an undertaking to the Director-General Inspection and Training Customs to produce the launch as and when required by him. Under instruction from the petitioners he stated that the petitioners shall remain committed to their said undertaking in future.
' The provisions of sections 157, 168 and 180 are free from any ambiguity and being mandatory in nature must be followed strictly. Under section 157(2) every conveyance of whatever kind used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under this Act shall also be liable to confiscation.
But under section 168(2) "where any goods arc seized under subsection (1) and no show-cause notice in respect thereof is given under section 180, within two months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized." This notice under section 180 must necessarily contain the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose the penalty but an opportunity, of making a representation in writing of being heard in terms thereof must also be given.
' In the result we declare that the seizure/confiscation of the launch namely "AL-AMINI" was of no legal effect and direct the respondents to issue Port Clearance Certificate to the petitioners enabling them to load goods and sail out of Karachi if so desired by them.