' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---In these 7 petitions for leave, petitioners have challenged the common judgment dated 23-8-1999 of the Balochistan High Court dismissing their appeals under section 196 of the Customs Act 1969. The facts in these petitions are more or less identical and the only question involved is about the interpretation of section 32 of the Customs Act. The question of law framed by the High Court for determination is as follows: "Whether before filing of bill of entry under section 79 of the Customs Act the Customs Department can determine that a wrong statement has been given by the importer in respect of description of goods particularly when the assignments are escorted under control of Customs Department from the point of entry to dry port."
' We have heard the arguments of Mr. H. Shakil Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and have referred to the relevant record.
2. The relevant facts have been stated in the impugned judgment of the High Court as follows:-- 'Before interpreting the above provision of law it is important to note that importers/ appellants through its Clearing and Forwarding Agent M/s. Barkat Ali & Company submitted detail at Mand before the authorities that the trucks contained consignments of pressed and bundled steel scrap classifiable under PCT Heading 7204; 3010 liable to customs duty at Rs,500 per metric tonne 15% ad valorem + 15% sales tax in addition to 5% income-tax. The declaration so made was not found to be correct both in respect of contents loaded in the truck and quantity, therefore, when the trucks reached Quetta under escort they were re-examined at the dry port. Surprisingly, reexamination revealed that goods loaded in the trucks contained both stainless steel scrap as well as copper scrap classifiable under PCT Heading 7204-2100 and 7404-0000 liable for customs duty at the rate of Rs,3000 per metric tonne + 25% ad valorem and 10% respectively in addition to the accumulative effect of sales tax at the rate of 15% and income-tax at the rate of 5% respectively, therefore, it is the case of Customs Department that by not making correct declaration and giving a true statement with regard to the contents of trucks as well as the quantity, appellants have violated the provisions of section 32 of the Customs Act.
' It may also be seen that in initial application submitted on 23-12-1998 appellants through their Clearing and Forwarding Agent at Mand that the truck continued pressed and bundled iron and steel scrap. Surprisingly, on the following day, i,e,, 24-12-1998 C&F Agent submitted another application in which it was mentioned that consignment contains copper scrap as well. From such conduct of appellants it is abundantly clear that not to pay high duty on copper scrap by making misdelcaration it was disclosed that the consignment contains impressed and boundled iron and steel. As per the order passed by the adjudicating authority appellant did not file application on 24-12-1998 voluntarily but on account of compelling circumstances namely, that when I came in the knowledge of importer/clearing agent that vide Letter C.No, 2-Misc. Correspondence: I&P/98/29865-7 the customs staff have detained the previous consignment of similar items loaded in the trucks before the trucks in respect whereof instant appeals have been filed at Quetta Dry Port for thorough examination, then under these circumstances Clearing Agent filed another application stating a false store that in the night owner of the goods had loaded copper scrap as well in the trucks etc. Similarly it has been concluded that from the escort letter which is issued on 26-121998 but signed on 27-12-1998 the submission of second declaration was afterthought to cover the previous wrong declaration. Accordingly on thorough examination it was found that misdeclaration has been made."
3. Section 32 of the Customs Act reads as under:--
32. False statement error, etc.--(1) If any person, in connection matter of customs--
(a) makes or signs of causes to be made or signed, or delivers or causes to be delivered to an officer of customs any declaration, notice, certificate or to her document whatsoever, or
(b) makes any statement in answer to any question put to him by an officer of customs which he is required by or under this Act to answer.
' Knowing or having reason to believe that such document or statement is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(2) Where, by reason of any such document or statement as aforesaid or by reason of some collusion, any duty or charge has not been levied or has been short-levied or has been erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay any amount on that account shall be served with a notice within three years of the relevant date requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice.
' Where, by reason of any inadvertence, error or misconstruction, and duty or charge has not been levied or has been short level or has been erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay any amount shall be served with a notice within (six months) of the relevant date requiring him to show cause why, he should not pay the amount specified in the notice.
(4) The appropriate officer, after considering the representative, if any, of such person as is referred to in subsection (2) or subsection (3) shall determine the amount of duty payable by him which shall in no case exceed the amount specified in the notice, as such person shall pay the amounts determined.
(5) For the purpose of this section "relevant date" means--
(a) in any case where duty is not levied, the date on which an order for the clearance of goods is made;
(b) in a case where duty is provisionally assessed under section 81, the date of adjustment of duty after its final assessm ent.;
(c) in a case where duty has been erroneously refunded, the date of its refund;
(d) in any other case, the date of payment of duty or charge."
' On interpretation of section 32 of the Customs Act, the High Court came to the conclusion that to attract penal consequences of section 32, it is not necessary that such statement or declaration is made in the bill-of-entry under section 79 of the Customs Act. Section 79 relates to filing of bill-of- entry in respect of imported goods for home consumption, warehousing, etc. According to Mr. H.
Shakil Ahmed, learned counsel, penal consequence of section 32 would only be attracted if any wrong declaration or misdeclaration is made by the importer in the bill-of-entry and, accordingly, even if there was any misdeclaration or wrong declaration in the statements made at Mand, as the consignments were to be cleared at Quetta Dry Port where bills-of-entry were to be filed under section 79 of the Act, such misdeclaration or wrong declaration was not an offence under section 32 to call for penal action against the petitioners in respect of goods in question.
4. We have carefully perused the provisions of section 32 and also section 79 of the Customs Act, 1969. Under subsection (1) of section 32, if any person in connection with any matter of customs makes any declaration or statement which is untrue in any material particulars, he is guilty of an offence under that section. No reference is made in section 32(1) to section 79 or that such declaration or mis-statement is made in the bill-of-entry. For an untrue declaration or statement to come within the mischief of section 32(1), the same should be untrue in any material particulars and that the statement or declaration is made "connection" with any matter of customs. The words "any matter of customs" are not restricted to bills-of-entry.
5. The question is whether the aforesaid misdeclaration or wrong statement about the goods related to any matter of customs. The answer is in the affirmative. Goods arrived at the border and were meant to be cleared from customs at Quetta Dry Port. A statement was required to be made at Mand about the imported goods being transported to Quetta Dry Port and if a misdeclaration was made to avoid payment of duty or with the object of avoiding payment of duty or with the object of importing goods which were A totally prohibited for import, the High Court rightly held that the concerned authority at Mand where the declaration was made were entitled to examine whether the goods correspond to the declaration made so that no change in the goods takes place from the starting point at Mand to the Dry Port. Such statement or declaration at the starting point, therefore, related to a matter of Customs and attracted penal provisions of section 32(1) of the Customs Act, in case it was untrue in any material particulars.
6. We find no error in the interpretation of section 32(1) of the Customs Act by the High Court to call for interference. As a result, Civil Petitions Nos.324-Q to 330-Q of 1999 are dismissed and leave is refused.