The INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, FBR vs ABDUL KARIM Ss

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

The INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, FBR VS ABDUL KARIM Ss. 2 (s), 156 (1) (89) & 211 (2)---Notification SRO 491(I)/85, dated 23-05-1985---Smuggled vehicles---Possession---Lawful excuse, plea of---Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by High Court in exercise of Reference jurisdiction pertaining to confiscation of vehicles in question which were alleged to be smuggled---Validity---Condition precedent for Section 156(1)(89) of Customs Act, 1969 to apply, is that goods in question should be smuggled, in terms of Section 2(s) of Customs Act, 1969, read with applicable notification thereunder---Vehicles in question could be considered smuggled if either (i) at the relevant time, the applicable notification in terms of Section 2(s)(ii) of Customs Act, 1969 included vehicles, or (ii) in terms of Section 2(s)(iii) of Customs Act, 1969 the vehicles were brought in by any route other than a route declared under Section 9 or 10 of Customs Act, 1969 or from any place other than the customs station---In cases of registered vehicles, if at the time the vehicle was intercepted, more than 3 years had elapsed for cases prior to Finance Act, 2007 and 5 years for cases thereafter, the defence of "lawful excuse" was indefeasible---It was reasonable to assume that if a vehicle stood registered, the government was presumed to have exercised due care and diligence with respect to its obligation to see whatever duties and taxes as payable to the government before a vehicle could be registered, stood paid---Vehicles in question were registered, which registration was duly verified, and they were presumed to have been brought lawfully; after completion of notified period in case of used vehicles also---Without any proof it could not be said that a person (last owner) was involved in registration of vehicle knowing fully well that no duties and taxes, as required under the law, were paid, and that therefore the vehicle was fraudulently registered, and the vehicle could be seized from him on his failure to produce documents of import and payment of duties and taxes thereon, and even beyond the period of three years or five years, as the case would be, as required under Section 211(2) of Customs Act, 1969---In most of the cases since first registration, the vehicles had changed many owners on the strength of registration book and no adverse inference could be drawn for the ultimate bona fide owners unless otherwise proved by the authorities, in which exercise they had failed---Verified registration book and official record was enough for bona fide presumption that a valid title existed---Vehicles in question were those which were either auctioned or were brought into Pakistan and were registered through a statutory process and the auction papers or registration papers of some other vehicles were not being used fraudulently---Where it was established that chassis/engine numbers had been tampered with after auction or registration to match the description of auctioned or registered vehicle, the lawful excuse was not available---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the orders passed by High Court as the questions had been answered cumulatively---Appeal was dismissed.

The INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, FBR vs ABDUL KARIM Ss — 2025 SCMR 969 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR