BASHIR AHMAD vs DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS), FBR, PESHAWAR Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

BASHIR AHMAD VS DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS), FBR, PESHAWAR Ss.17, 181, 194-a & 196---Notification SRO 499 (I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 185(3)---Transporting smuggled goods---Confiscation of vehicle---Option to pay fine---aggrieved person---Scope---Petitioner was driver of vehicle which was confiscated by authorities for transporting smuggled goods---Owner of vehicle did not come forward, instead the petitioner sought release of vehicle against payment of fine---Validity---Vehicle was seized in year 2020 and it was outrightly confiscated---Before insertion of proviso to Section 157(2) of Customs act, 1969 it remained effective for a short period and was omitted through Finance act, 2022---Proviso inserted in section 157 of Customs act, 1969 generally explained the extent of confiscation and did not in any manner affect, limit or interfere with the powers conferred on Federal Board of Revenue under Section 181 of Customs act, 1969---In the context of giving an option to release goods in lieu of payment of fine, provisions of Sections 157 & 181 were independent of each other and the former could not be construed as having an overriding effect on the latter---Inserted and then omitted proviso was not relevant or attracted in the matter, as the vehicle was found carrying smuggled goods and was used exclusively for transportation thereof, which was covered under clause (b) of Preamble to Notification SRO 499(I)/2009, dated 13-06-2009 and the option contemplated under section 181 of Customs act, 1969 could not have been given for its release---aggrieved person is the one whose legal right have been invaded, or whose pecuniary interest is directly and adversely affected---Expression aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, denial of some personal pecuniary or property rights, or imposition upon a party for burden or obligation---Statutory right of appeal provided under Section 194a of Customs act, 1969 is confined to an aggrieved person or an officer of customs---Petitioner was not owner of vehicle, nor had the latter sought benefit under section 181 of Customs act, 1969---Petitioner was neither authorized nor was acting as a lawful attorney on behalf of owner of vehicle---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the orders of confiscation of vehicle in question---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

BASHIR AHMAD vs DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS), FBR, PESHAWAR Ss — 2025 PTD 608 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD