Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IBRAHIM VS Respondent: THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
P L D 1960 (W
P L D 1960 (W. P.) Karachi 345
Before G. B. Constantine and A. S. Faruqui, JJ
IBRAHIM‑Petitioner
versus
THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others --Respondents
Writ Petition No. 236 of 1959, decided on 10th December, 1959.
(a) Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), Ss. 168 & 183‑Vessel liable to confiscation in like manner as goods‑S. 183 applicable ---Option to owner to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.
Since the vessel is liable to confiscation in like manner as goods, therefore section 183, Sea Customs Act, 1878 applies not only to goods but to a vessel.
Whenever confiscation is authorised by the Act, the officer adjudging it shall give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit.
(b) Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XVIII of 1947), S. 3 (3)‑Deals with goods and not with vessels.
The Imports and Exports (Control) Act deals with goods and does not deal with vessels.
Mufti Alimuddin for Petitioner.
Muzaffar Hussain for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 10th December, 1959.
JUDGMENT
CONSTANTINE, J.‑In this case the petitioner is the owner of a launch which was confiscated by the Customs Collector under section 168 of the Sea Customs Act on the 'ground that it had been towing a small boat containing goods which fell within section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act. The petitioner went in appeal to the Board of Revenue upon the facts and has now come to us with a writ petition. Mr. Mufti has confined himself before us to one point which was not raised in appeal to the Board of Revenue. This point is that section 168 of the Sea Customs Act states that every vessel, cart or other means of conveyance used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under this Act shall in like manner be liable to confiscation, and section 183 of the Sea Customs Act states that whenever confiscation is authorised by this Act, the office adjudging it shall give the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit. Mr. Mufti argues that since the vessel is liable to confiscation in like manner as goods, therefore section 183 applies not only to goods but to a vessel, and we think that that contention is correct. Mr. Muzaffar Hussain argues, however, that even if this is so yet under subsection (3) of section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act it is provided that all provisions of the Sea Customs Act shall have effect accordingly except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word "shall" ‑therein the words "may" ‑was substituted. But this subsection itself deals only with goods and we think that this substitution of discretionary option for an obligatory option applies only to goods and not to a vessel for the Imports and Exports (Control ), Act deals with goods and does not deal with vessels. T he result is therefore that the Collector of Customs should be directed to give the owner of the vessel an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as he thinks fit. Since this point was not taken in appeal, we consider that there should be no costs of this writ petition. K. M. A.
Order accordingly.