Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199—Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction—Cancellation of vehicle registration—Jurisdictional competence—Scope of interference—Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO), Islamabad, cancelled transfer of a Hino Truck originally registered with Motor Registering Authority (MRA), Peshawar—Held, ETO Islamabad lacked territorial jurisdiction to cancel a registration pertaining to a vehicle registered in another province—Orders passed without lawful authority were void ab initio—Exercise of such power amounted to jurisdictional excess and infringement of proprietary rights—High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, may set aside administrative orders passed in patent lack of jurisdiction. (b) Contract Act, 1872 ----Ss. 10 & 73—Loan agreement—Default and security—Enforcement of contractual right—Respondent obtained loan of Rs.1,500,000/- and pledged vehicle documents as security under agreement dated 15.05.2009—On default, lender transferred ownership of vehicle pursuant to clause authorizing sale and possession—Held, transfer justified in terms of contract—Subsequent complaint and cancellation proceedings could not extinguish contractual rights lawfully exercised before any contrary adjudication. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 249-A & 417—Acquittal and abatement—Legal effect—Borrower’s criminal complaint against lender under Ss. 420, 468 & 471 PPC culminated in acquittal under S.249-A Cr.P.C.; subsequent appeal abated due to lender’s death—Acquittal having attained finality, no adverse inference could be drawn against lender’s ownership claim—Administrative authorities bound to respect outcome of judicial proceedings. (d) Administrative law ----Fraud—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.—Maintainability—Petitioner’s claim that cancellation order was obtained through misrepresentation—Authorities failed to examine material record or apply judicial mind—Findings based on conjecture—Orders dated 04.08.2010, 13.09.2017, and 17.01.2018 set aside for being arbitrary and passed without lawful authority. (g) Disposition— Writ petition accepted; orders dated 04.08.2010, 13.09.2017, and 17.01.2018 declared void; Motor Registering Authority, Peshawar directed to restore ownership of vehicle in the names of legal heirs of deceased lender.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969 —- Ss. 2(s), 16, 139, 142, 156(1) item 70(i), 168 & 196 —- Baggage Rules, 2006 —- S.R.O. 1512(I)/2022 dated 26.07.2022 —- Import Policy Order, 2020 —- Smuggling —- Green Channel —- Misdeclaration —- Re-export of restricted items —- Prerequisite of declaration under S.139 —- Scope and limitations of S.142. Customs officials intercepted the respondents at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore, while passing through the green channel with commercial quantity of foreign-origin goods including 1040 mobile phones, drones, and a PlayStation, allegedly without declaration and in violation of applicable customs laws. The Tribunal allowed re-export under Section 142 of the Customs Act, relying on departmental letter dated 14.05.2018 and the Import Policy Order. The High Court held that Section 142 could not be invoked in absence of a true declaration under Section 139, which is a sine qua non for availing the benefit of re-export. It was further held that the green channel itself amounts to a declaration of having no dutiable goods, and misdeclaration or failure to declare excludes any entitlement to protection under Section 142. Goods falling within the prohibited category under S.R.O. 1512 were deemed "smuggled goods" under Section 2(s), triggering penalties under Section 156(1). The Tribunal failed to determine whether a declaration under Section 139 had been made or whether an opportunity to declare was afforded, which were essential factual questions for application of Section 142. Held, Tribunal committed legal error by allowing re-export without determining foundational facts required under Sections 139 and 142 of the Customs Act. (b) Administration of justice —- Appellate Tribunal’s jurisdiction —- Factual determination —- Failure to address material questions of fact —- Consequences. The Tribunal, as the highest fact-finding forum in customs matters, was required to render findings on whether a declaration under Section 139 had been made by the respondents and whether the goods seized qualified as smuggled goods under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act. Its omission to address these factual questions led to a legally flawed conclusion. The High Court emphasized that judicial reliance on Section 142, without examining the foundational fact of declaration, amounted to misapplication of law. Held, findings of the Tribunal were unsustainable; matter remanded for fresh determination on facts and law. Cited Cases: • Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Messrs RYK Mills, 2023 SCMR 1856 • National Logistics Cell v. Collector of Customs, 2023 SCMR 1325 • CIR, Lahore v. Sargodha Spinning Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., 2022 SCMR 1082 • T & N Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector Customs, 2022 SCMR 1119 • CIR Zone-I, LTU v. MCB Bank Ltd., 2021 PTD 1367 Disposition: Customs Reference Application was allowed; Impugned Judgment was set aside; and the matter was remanded to the Customs Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh in light of the legal and factual observations made by the High Court.

Summary: Once a matter has been decided by a 'judicial' or 'quasi-judicial' authority, it will become 'functus officio' and on its own cannot modify the adjudicated matter subsequently. (a) Customs Act, 1969— ----S. 179—Adjudication—Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority—Scope—Finality of orders—Doctrine of Functus Officio—Held, once an Adjudicating Authority passes an order under Section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969, it becomes functus officio and cannot unilaterally modify, amend, or alter its order—In the present case, the Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) initially imposed a personal penalty of Rs.10,000/- per petitioner but later, through a Corrigendum, increased it to Rs.7,922,048/-, equivalent to the assessed value of the seized mobile phones—Held, such modification was without jurisdiction and ultra vires the Act—Reliance placed on Kh. Muhammad Fazil v. Mumtaz Munnawar Khan Niazi (2024 SCMR 1059), affirming that adjudicatory authorities cannot alter final decisions except for clerical or arithmetical mistakes. ----Cited Cases: • Kh. Muhammad Fazil v. Mumtaz Munnawar Khan Niazi (2024 SCMR 1059) • Iqbal Pervaiz v. Harsan (2018 SCMR 359) • Muhammad Wahid v. Nasrullah (2016 SCMR 179) • Shujat Ali v. Muhammad Riasat (PLD 2006 SC 140) • Muhammad Anwar v. Saeed Akhtar (PLD 2004 SC 911) (b) Customs Act, 1969— ----Ss. 179 & 193—Appeal against an order-in-original—Exclusive remedy—Held, an order passed under Section 179 of the Act can only be challenged through an appeal under Section 193 before the Collector (Appeals)—No provision in the Act allows the Adjudicating Authority to suo moto amend its own final decision—Respondent had no lawful authority to issue a Corrigendum altering the order-in-original—Such modification is without legal effect—Reliance placed on Anees-ur-Rehman v. Faysal Bank (2020 CLD 473) confirming that adjudicatory bodies cannot alter their final decisions post-issuance. (c) Administrative Law—Functus Officio Doctrine— ----Judicial and quasi-judicial orders—Finality—Scope—Once an adjudicating authority finalizes a decision, it cannot be altered except by an appellate forum or under a limited statutory provision for correction of clerical mistakes—Held, allowing authorities to unilaterally amend their final orders would create legal uncertainty and undermine judicial process—Reliance placed on Bank Al Habib Ltd. v. Abu Bakar Textile Mills (2016 CLD 454). ----Disposition: Writ Petition allowed—Impugned Corrigendum dated 10.06.2024 set aside as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect—Restoration of the original adjudicated penalties.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969: ----Ss. 168(2), 25(2) Customs duty—Limitation—Jurisdiction of Intelligence & Investigation (Customs & Excise)—Valuation of imported goods—Maintainability of show-cause notice—Director General, Intelligence & Investigation (Customs & Excise) initiated an investigation into alleged misdeclaration and under-invoicing of self-adhesive plastic sheets, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice—Tribunal held that the officers of the Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation were not authorized under SRO 388(1)/82 to exercise powers under S.25 or S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969—Consequently, the investigation and issuance of the show-cause notice were beyond jurisdiction and void—Extension of limitation under S.168(2) by the Collector of Customs was also unlawful, as it lacked recorded reasons in writing, rendering the show-cause notice time-barred—Tribunal applied the principle that when the initial order is void, all subsequent proceedings based on it are also void—Appeal allowed accordingly. (b) Customs Act, 1969: ----S. 25(2) Valuation of imported goods—Burden of proof—Department alleged that the declared value of imported goods was incorrect and enhanced the valuation by 30%—Tribunal held that customs authorities failed to provide any evidence supporting their valuation—Enhancement of value was based on market inquiries conducted in Pakistan rather than in the country of export, contrary to S.25(2), which requires valuation based on the price paid or payable in the country of export—Further, no disciplinary action was taken against customs officers allegedly involved in the valuation discrepancy, weakening the department’s case—Burden of proof lies on the party making an allegation, as per Article 119 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984—Failure to provide evidence against the declared value rendered the customs valuation invalid—Appeal allowed, and order in original set aside. ----Cited Cases: • 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1857 • 1999 SCMR 1881 • 2002 YLR 2828 • PTCL 1986 CL 300

Summary: (a) Duty Drawback Claim – Procedural Compliance: The complainant filed for duty drawback under Section 35 of the Customs Act, 1969, after re-exporting imported galvanized sheets to Afghanistan via Torkham—All required conditions were met, including identification on the shipping bill, payment of import duty, and re-export—However, the claim remained undecided for over a year, despite multiple reminders. (b) Jurisdictional Dispute and Delayed Processing: The Appraisement Collectorate initially processed the claim but later referred it to the Exports Collectorate, which subsequently sent it back—A jurisdictional dispute arose between Karachi and Peshawar Customs, further delaying the claim—Only after filing a complaint with the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) did the Customs authorities revive the claim, issuing a belated show cause notice questioning the claim's compliance. (c) Federal Tax Ombudsman’s Findings – Maladministration Established: The Customs authorities failed to process the claim within a reasonable timeframe, amounting to maladministration—No justification existed for keeping the claim pending for over a year—The delay was only addressed after the Deputy Collector, Mr. Shafqat Niazi, intervened following the complaint to the FTO. (d) Remedial Directions by FTO: The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) was directed to ensure that: The claimant is given a hearing before adjudication. The claim is decided within 30 days. Compliance is reported within 45 days. ----Disposition: Case remanded—CBR directed to ensure an expedited decision on the duty drawback claim.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969: ----Section 32 Misapplication of legal provisions—Customs Appeal challenging the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 32(2) after a prior notice under Section 32(3) was issued—The appellant imported PTCL telephone calling cards at a declared value but was later charged based on an alternative value by the Customs Department—The appellant contended that after a demand under Section 32(3), a fresh show cause notice under Section 32(2) could not be issued—The Court observed that once a demand under Section 32(3) was issued, the matter should have been resolved under that provision, and the invocation of Section 32(2) without a decision on Section 32(3) was improper—Court also noted that invoking Section 32(1) after the goods were cleared was legally untenable—Appeal allowed due to mishandling of the case by the Customs authorities. (b) Customs Act, 1969: ----Section 32(2) & (3) Inapplicability of concurrent application of Section 32(2) and Section 32(3)—The Court ruled that the provisions under Section 32(2) and Section 32(3) of the Customs Act cannot be applied simultaneously in the same matter—The department failed to justify action under Section 32(2) as the goods had already been cleared under Section 32(3)—The appeal was upheld due to procedural and legal flaws in the department's handling of the case. (c) Administrative Procedure: ----Legal and Procedural Oversight Violation of procedure by Customs authorities—The Court criticized the Customs Department's failure to properly apply the legal provisions, specifically highlighting the wrongful handling of the case under Sections 32(2) and 32(3)—The department’s attempt to correct its error by resorting to alternative provisions was deemed an unjustified "smoke screen" for mishandling—The failure to resolve the matter properly under Section 32(3) and issuing a subsequent charge under Section 32(2) was seen as a procedural oversight that resulted in the appellant’s protection.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969: ----Misdeclaration of Goods – Import Policy Violation Importer, Messrs. Usman Industries, misdeclared the description and value of imported goods in the bill of entry, declaring them as poster paper at £260 per metric ton—Customs examination revealed actual goods as various types of coated and tissue paper, with assessed value significantly higher than declared—Import of stock-lot quality goods was banned under the import policy—Importer was penalized 150% of the assessed value, and goods were confiscated with an option to redeem upon payment of a fine equal to 15% of the value along with applicable duties and taxes. ----Cited Case: Import General Manifest (I.G.M.) No. 479/2000 (b) Customs Agent’s Liability: ----Bill of Entry Filing – No Collusion Proven Appellant, a customs agent, filed a bill of entry based on documents provided by the importer—No evidence of the appellant’s knowledge of misdeclaration or collusion with the importer—Tribunal held that a customs agent cannot be penalized unless active participation in fraud is proven—Penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant was set aside. ----Cited Case: Cus. 533/2001 (dismissed) Civil Special Customs Appeal No. 164 of 2002 (pending in Sindh High Court) (c) Appeal Allowed: ----No Legal Basis for Penalty on Customs Agent Tribunal ruled that the appellant customs agent merely filed documents based on importer-provided records—No wrongdoing was established—Imposition of penalty on appellant was unjustified—Appeal allowed, and penalty set aside.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969----Ss. 2(s), 157(1), 157(2), and 196----Confiscation of conveyances and goods----Distinction between “liable to confiscation” and “shall be confiscated.” Under Section 157(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, the phrase "liable to confiscation" is discretionary, allowing authorities to decide whether confiscation is warranted based on the case's facts and circumstances. This discretion must be exercised in adherence to natural justice, ensuring notice, the opportunity to be heard, and fair adjudication. Conversely, "shall be confiscated" mandates automatic confiscation upon fulfillment of specified conditions. The Appellate Tribunal erred in upholding the confiscation of the applicants’ vehicle without considering whether confiscation was proportionate or warranted under the discretionary power. (b) SRO 499(I)/2009----Application of clause (f)----Redemption of conveyances. Clause (f) of SRO 499(I)/2009 empowers adjudicating authorities to allow redemption of vehicles not falling under clause (b) of the notification. The Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise this discretion and consider whether the applicants’ vehicle could be redeemed under the said provision. Reliance was placed on Collector of Customs v. Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench-II, Lahore and others (2020 PTD 209), upheld by the Supreme Court. (c) Natural justice----Principles of proportionality and fairness in confiscation. Confiscation of property or conveyances under the Customs Act, 1969, must align with the principles of natural justice. No person should be deprived of property by way of penalty unless it is established that they were complicit in or furthered the commission of an offense. Innocent individuals must not suffer undue punishment. The adjudicating authority must exercise discretion judiciously and proportionately. (d) Judicial precedents----Binding authority of earlier decisions----Doctrine of stare decisis. Later benches of equal strength in the same court are bound by earlier decisions on the same points of law. Any deviation requires referring the matter to a larger bench. The Tribunal and authorities below disregarded binding precedents, rendering their decision unsustainable. Reliance was placed on Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423). ----Disposition: The reference application was allowed in favor of the applicants, and the Appellate Tribunal’s judgment was set aside. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of confiscation under Section 157(2) and directed the authorities to reconsider the case in light of the principles of proportionality and natural justice. ----Cited Cases: Haji Abdul Razzak v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance (PLD 1974 SC 5) Collector of Customs v. Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench-II, Lahore and others (2020 PTD 209) Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423) Qaiser and another v. The State (2022 SCMR 1641)

Summary: (a) Confiscation of Vehicles under Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 – Discretionary Nature of Confiscation The phrase “liable to confiscation” under Section 157(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 does not imply automatic confiscation. Instead, it grants the adjudicating authority discretion to decide whether confiscation is warranted based on the facts and circumstances of the case. This discretion must be exercised according to principles of natural justice, ensuring the vehicle owner is given proper notice, an opportunity of hearing, and the adjudicating authority evaluates the facts judiciously. Key Principles: The term “liable to confiscation” implies discretionary power, whereas “shall be confiscated” implies mandatory confiscation. Discretion must adhere to principles of natural justice, including notice, hearing, and proper reasoning. Cited Cases: Haji Abdul Razzak v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance (PLD 1974 SC 5) Collector of Customs v. Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench-II, Lahore (2020 PTD 209) Suleman v. The State (PLD 1962 Lahore 11) (b) Redeemability under Clause (f) of SRO 499(I)/2009 Under Clause (f) of SRO 499(I)/2009, the adjudicating authority is empowered to redeem a vehicle that does not fall under Clause (b) of the preamble of the said notification. This provision ensures that confiscation is not an automatic outcome and provides an alternative remedy where circumstances warrant leniency. Key Principle: Vehicles not covered under Clause (b) can be redeemed by the owner under the provisions of Clause (f) if the violation is not severe. Cited Cases: Khan Wali v. The Collector MCC, Peshawar (2016 PTD 2388) Nazir Ahmed v. Chairman, Customs Appellate Tribunal (Customs Ref No. 52/2015) (c) Principles of Natural Justice and Discretionary Power The adjudicating authority must exercise its discretion in good faith, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice. A person cannot be deprived of their property unless it is established that they were actively complicit in smuggling or their vehicle was used knowingly for illegal purposes. The authority cannot proceed arbitrarily or in a manner inconsistent with legal principles. Key Principle: No innocent person should be unjustly deprived of their property. Confiscation decisions must balance proportionality, culpability, and equity. Cited Cases: Gulistan v. The State (1993 SCMR 316) Hafiz Ullah v. The State (2003 P Cr. LJ 436) (d) Conflicting Decisions by Coordinate Benches – Binding Precedent When conflicting precedents exist among coordinate benches of equal strength, the earlier decision prevails unless a larger bench is constituted to resolve the conflict. A subsequent judgment disregarding a prior decision of equal authority holds no precedential value. Key Principle: Later benches must respect decisions of prior benches of the same strength unless reviewed by a larger bench. Cited Cases: Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423) Qaiser v. The State (2022 SCMR 1641) Hasnain Raza v. Lahore High Court (PLD 2022 SC 7) (e) Evaluation of Evidence and Application of Judicial Mind The Customs Appellate Tribunal must properly examine the evidence on record and apply its judicial mind before reaching any conclusion. A failure to evaluate material evidence or provide reasoned findings renders the adjudication unsustainable. Key Principle: The Tribunal must issue a reasoned and speaking order, adhering to the principles of judicial propriety. Cited Case: Collector of Customs v. Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench-II, Lahore (2020 PTD 209) Disposition: The Customs Reference Application is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal is set aside for failing to exercise discretion judiciously and for violating principles of natural justice. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with the principles set forth in the judgment.

Summary: Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic of Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides the right of a fair trial and due process to accused or person likely to be affected, which included reasonable opportunity of hearing and to be represented by a counsel of his own choice or at least a counsel in order to protect his rights. ----- (a) Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) ----S. 196---Right of fair trial---Ex parte decision by Customs Appellate Tribunal---Opportunity of hearing---Scope. The Customs Appellate Tribunal decided two separate appeals, including Customs Appeal No. 418/LB/2022, through a consolidated judgment without affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the applicant (Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation, Customs). The applicant contended that no notice was served, and the counsel whose attendance was marked lacked authorization to represent him. The High Court held that Article 10-A of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, which includes reasonable notice, effective representation by counsel, and an opportunity to present one’s stance. Denial of these rights constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that procedural fairness is mandatory in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, and a party cannot be condemned unheard. The Tribunal’s failure to distinguish between the separate and distinct factual and legal aspects of two appeals deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to defend the Order-in-Original. The consolidated judgment, to the extent of Customs Appeal No. 418/LB/2022, was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after providing the applicant with proper notice and hearing. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 10-A---Right to due process and fair trial---Essentials---Judicial forum---Independence, impartiality, and opportunity of representation. The High Court reiterated that Article 10-A ensures fairness in judicial proceedings, requiring that: The party must have an opportunity to appear and be heard. Representation by a counsel of one’s choice is integral. A reasoned decision is necessary to meet the requirements of justice. In this case, the applicant’s right to due process was violated due to a lack of notice and improper representation, which prejudiced his stance before the Tribunal. The impugned judgment failed to comply with the constitutional mandate of a fair trial. Cited Cases: Jawad S. Khawaja v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2024 SC 337 Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh 2024 SCMR 1689 Tahir Mehmood v. The State 1997 PCrLJ 565 Muhammad Umair v. The State 2024 PCrLJ 183 Rajab Ali v. The State 2019 MLD 1713