Facts out of which this petition has arisen are that the petitioner is purchaser of second hand Toyota Corollar Car bearing No.PRQ-4264 Model 1990. This car is claimed to have been purchased through an agent namely Shahid Mehmood in September, 1998. It is alleged that the petitioner before purchase had made all necessary inquiries to ensure that the vehicle was properly registered and that all duties had been paid.
2. Petitioner's driver was taking the car to Ichhra when respondent No.2 atongwith his staff took in custody the vehicle alongwith the registration book, through detention memo. Issued under section 2(kkl of the Customs Act, 1969. The grievance of the petitioner- is that the act of detention on the part of respondents was illegal and uncalled for.
3. Respondent No.2 present in Court, alongwith Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the car was taken into custody as the Customs Authorities had doubts that Custom Duty had been evaded but the inquiries up till now could not furnish any definite proof of evasion of Customs Duties. He stated that inquiries would take some time but since at present respondents do not have any material to charge the petitioner with violation of any provision of the Customs Act, respondents have decided to release the car forthwith. He further submitted that respondents may be allowed to complete their inquiries and proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
4.From the stand taken by respondent No.2, in this Court, it is obvious that there was no reason for taking into custody the car in question. Since there was no material or definite proof to assume evasion of Customs Duty or allegation of smuggling, respondents could not take into custody the vehicle of the petitioner. Even otherwise, respondent No.2 has admitted that the car is being released as there is no material at present with the respondents to justify detention of the vehicle.
This being so, this petition is A allowed, the act of taking the car into custody and detaining the same is declared to be illegal and it is directed that respondent No.2 shall forthwith release the.
Vehicle of the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to make independent inquiries and if some definite material is received, the respondents will proceed in the matter, in accordance with law, after notice to the petitioner.