Inspector-General, Frontier Corps Balochistan v. Allauddin,
Bench: Ghulam Mustafa Mengal
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a customs dispute over a Mitsubishi Pajero jeep that was seized in 2003 at a check post in Balochistan while allegedly being smuggled into Pakistan without proper import documents. The vehicle, along with two others, was confiscated by customs authorities. A man named Allauddin claimed ownership and appealed, and the Customs Appellate Tribunal ordered the vehicle released, allowing him to reclaim it by paying import duties and a redemption fine under a government scheme for smuggled vehicles.
The Frontier Corps, representing customs authorities, challenged this release before the Balochistan High Court, but filed their appeal (called a "Reference") late. They also filed a separate application asking the court to excuse the delay, citing bureaucratic delays in getting approval from the Central Board of Revenue and law-and-order problems in the city.
The High Court refused to excuse the delay. It explained that the Customs Act sets a specific 90-day deadline for filing such appeals, and this specific law overrides the general Limitation Act's provision allowing delays to be forgiven in certain circumstances. Since the Customs Act is a special law with its own limitation period, the general rule for condoning delays did not apply here.
As a result, the court dismissed the government's appeal simply because it was filed too late, without even examining whether the original decision to release the vehicle was correct. This case highlights how strict, specific deadlines in specialized laws like the Customs Act must be followed exactly, regardless of administrative difficulties.
یہ مقدمہ ایک مٹسوبشی پجیرو جیپ سے متعلق کسٹمز تنازعے پر مبنی ہے جسے 2003 میں بلوچستان کی ایک چیک پوسٹ پر اس الزام کے تحت ضبط کیا گیا تھا کہ اسے مناسب درآمدی دستاویزات کے بغیر پاکستان میں اسمگل کیا جا رہا تھا۔ اس گاڑی کو، دو دیگر گاڑیوں کے ساتھ، کسٹم حکام نے قبضے میں لے لیا تھا۔ علاؤالدین نامی ایک شخص نے گاڑی کی ملکیت کا دعویٰ کرتے ہوئے اپیل دائر کی، اور کسٹمز اپیلٹ ٹریبونل نے گاڑی رہا کرنے کا حکم دیا، جس کے تحت وہ اسمگل شدہ گاڑیوں کے لیے حکومتی سکیم کے تحت درآمدی ڈیوٹی اور ریڈمپشن فائن ادا کر کے گاڑی واپس حاصل کر سکتا تھا۔
فرنٹیئر کور نے، جو کسٹم حکام کی نمائندگی کر رہی تھی، اس رہائی کے فیصلے کو بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا، لیکن اپنی اپیل (جسے "ریفرنس" کہا جاتا ہے) تاخیر سے دائر کی۔ انہوں نے عدالت سے تاخیر کو معاف کرنے کی درخواست کرتے ہوئے ایک عل
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2013 P T D 651
[Balochistan High Court]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, JJ
INSPECTOR -GENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS BALOCHISTAN through Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise, Quetta
Versus
Messrs ALLAUDDIN and anothe r
Customs Reference No. 58 of 2006, decided on 3rd December, 2012.
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) ---
----S. 196---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5 ---Reference to High Court ---Limitation period ---Scope ---Application for condonation of delay, dismissal of---Period of filing a Reference (to High Court) had been prescribed under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969, which was 90 days of the date on which the aggrieved person or Collector, as the case might be, was served with the order of the Appellate Tribunal ---Where limitation was provided by any special enactment, other than the Limitation Act, 1908, then S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would not be applicable for purposes of condonation of delay ---Application was dismissed accordingly.
(b) Limitation Act (I X of 1908) ---
----S. 5---Condonation of delay ---Limitation period provided by a special enactment --- Applicability of S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 in such a case ---Scope ---Where limitation was provided by any special enactment, other than the Limitation A ct, 1908, then S. 5 of the said Act would not be applicable for purposes of condonation of delay.
Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel for Appellants.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st July, 2012.
JUDGMENT
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---Through this Custom Reference Application under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 31st May 2006, passed by the Member Technical, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Karachi Bench -1 at Quet ta, wherein vehicle has been released.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27th May, 2003 Pishin Scout seized a Mitsubishi Pajero Jeep bearing Registration No.BC -3396 along with two other vehicles at Shela Bagh Check Post, from unknown smugglers when being smuggled into the country without having import document as such, a case was instituted under sections 2(s) and 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 and S.R.O.374(I)/2002 dated 15th June, 2 002. Show Cause Notice was displayed on the Notice Board of the Headquarters Office, F.C. Balochstan, Quetta, one Allauddin claimed ownership of the vehicle. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, all the vehicles were confiscated by the Collec tor (Adjudication), Quetta vide order dated 28th October, 2004. An appeal was filed by the owner of the vehicle before the Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Karachi Bench -I, at Quetta, seeking relief given by the Government vide amended S.R.O. 574(I)/2005 i.e. release of smuggled vehicles on payment of import levies plus 30% redemption fine of CIF value, who after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, allowed the appeal and released the confiscated vehicle in terms of the provisions of amended S.R.O.574(I)/2005 dated 6th June 2005 vide order dated 18th May, 2006, issued on 31st May, 2006.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Bench -I, at Quetta dated 18th May 2006, issued o n 31st May 2006, appellant has filed the instant Reference and along with Reference an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 has been filed for condonation of delay.
4. Ch. Mumtaz Yousuf, learned Standing Counsel has contended that the vehicle in question was declared tampered by the F S. L, as such, the learned Appellate Tribunal Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Karachi Bench -I, at Quetta has failed to appreciate the provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and S.R.O. 574(1)/2005 dated 6th June 200 5, whereby no option is provided for release of the tempered vehicle and on the point of limitation he argued that the approval from the Central Board. of Revenue dated 26th August, 2006 was received on 2nd September, 2006 and due to law and order situatio n in the city from 26th August, 2006 to 30th August, 2006 the appeal could not be filed in time.
5. On the other hand despite service, respondent No.1 remained absent.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel and per used the record. From the perusal of record it shows that this Reference was presented in the office on 19th September, 2006 and copy of the approval is not available on record. The first legal question as to whether the limitation provided by section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 will govern the proceedings or the limitation provided by section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1980. Period of limitation for filing of Reference has been prescribed in section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, which is ninety days of the date on which the aggrieved person or Collector, as the case may be was served with the order of the Appellate Tribunal under subsection (3) of section 194 -B. We are of the considered view that where limitation is provided by any special enactment, other t han the Limitation Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable for condonation of delay if occasioned in filing such lis. Thus the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for condonation of delay have no force.
7. For the foregoing re asons, instant Reference Application being barred by limitation is dismissed.
MWA/9/Q Application dismissed.