MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, Facts leading to this Constitution Petition are brief and simple, Mobile Gasht Party of Pishin Scouts, on 30th June, 1990 apprehended a tractor with trolly bearing registration No. LEV-6231 containing contraband goods.
2. On receipt of case-papers Customs Authorities gave notice C-No.-V- 8(821) Cus/90/3385-88, dated 25th August, 1990 to the petitioner, requiring him to show cause why penal action be not taken against him for contravening provisions of Customs Act, 1969, and Import Export (Control)
Act, 1950. Detailed reply was submitted within stipulated period. Thereafter, learned Deputy Collector Customs and Central Excise, by means of Order No. 939/90 Case No. Cus/PSC/ 369/90, dated 12th September, 1990, directed confiscation of contraband goods seized in the matter yet allowed immediate release of tractor and trolly. Operative portion of the order is reproduced below for ready reference: "I have gone through the record of the case and considered oral and written submissions. From the arguments of the Advocate and statements of the applicants and abovementioned witnesses I am confident that the goods seized in this case were not recovered from the tractor in question, which has been unlawfully involved in this case. I therefore order immediate release of the seized tractor and trolly to its lawful owner. So far, as the seized goods are concerned no one has claimed their ownership nor has any evidence of their lawful import been produced. As the charges levelled in the show- cause notice are established, I therefore order outright confiscation of the seized goods under clause (8) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969."
3. It is alleged that petitioner thereafter repeatedly approached the respondent for returning him the tractor with trolly, but in vain. Legal notice dated 17th November, 1990 was also sent to respondent through registered post, which too did not yield fruitful results. Thus aggrieved from illegal and improper exercise of authority by respondent, present Constitution Petition was filed on 28th November, 1990.
4. We have heard Mirza Hussain Khan learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Mohammad Riaz Ahmed learned Standing Counsel, for respondent.
5. Main question which requires consideration would be, "whether respondent has any jurisdiction to withhold confiscated goods or conveyance after adjudication by competent authorities as notified under the provisions of Customs Act"?
6. The officials of various agencies which include Pakistan Army, Navy, Frontier Corps, Coast Guards, Pishin Scouts, Police etc. Have been authorized under section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969 to discharge duties of Custom Officer for limited purpose as specified in respective S.R.Os; issued by concerned competent authority from time to time, who are thus under legal obligation to transmit seized contraband goods or conveyance to Customs Authorities in accordance with sections 169 and 170 of Customs Act, 1969 for further action.
7. Under the scheme of Customs Act, various functions) have been assigned to different authorities.
Power of adjudication is conferred on specified authorities, only to examine whether property is liable for confiscation or not. Thus orders passed by said adjudicating authorities concerning disposal of goods and conveyance are binding on the seizing officer or Custom Officer notified under section 6 of the Customs Act. Non-compliance or violation of any such order would render relevant provision redundant and nugatory thereby frustrating the law. It is noticed that seizing officers of various agencies at occasions, do not obey the order of adjudicating authority which entails unnecessary multiple litigation and compels aggrieved parties to invoke constitutional remedies. This tendency of the officials cannot be approved. All such agencies being organs of 'State' are bond to implement the law in true letter and spirit.
8. Provisions of Chapter XVIII of Customs Act clearly show that Customs Authorities have exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication of seized goods and conveyance. However aggrieved party has right of appeal and revision as contained in Chapter XIX of the Customs Act. Therefore, all the agencies entrusted with powers of Custom Officers within the purview of section 6 of Customs Act are obliged to comply with verdict given by Customs Authorities concerning adjudication of goods or conveyance. Obviously respondents do not enjoy any immunity from law. It has absolutely no authority to disregard or frustrate decision of Customs Authorities. Learned Standing Counsel could not point out any provision of law whereby respondent assumed jurisdiction to directly or indirectly violate, order passed by Deputy Collector Land Customs and Central Excise, Quetta in the capacity of adjudicating authority.
9. Learned Standing Counsel feebly argued that Review Petition has been filed, therefore, pending its disposal, petitioner was not entitled to the return of tractor and trolly. BI Suffice, to observe that Review Petition is a creation of statute as held in P.L.D. 1970 Supreme Court 1 and P.L.D. 19811 g Supreme Court 94... Whereas no such provision-exists in the' Customs Act. Even otherwise mere filing of petition does not J operate as stay, respondent cannot be automatically clothed! With authority to withhold the goods etc.
10. For the above reasons we are inclined to declare action of respondent concerning withholding of tractor and trolly, to be without lawful authority and in excess of jurisdiction vested in him.
11. Accordingly respondent is directed to release the tractor and trolly in accordance with order passed by Deputy Collector Central Excise and Land Customs, Quetta. There shall be no order for costs. This petition was decided by short order of even date and here are the reasons for the same.