Customs officers accused of disregarding tribunal orders – Pakistan

LAHORE: Customs officials are allegedly flouting orders of tribunals despite clear directions from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to implement the orders issued by them.

Under the General Customs Regulation No. 2 of 2024, the FBR directed Customs officials to comply with orders passed by tribunals or other adjudicative forum, except in cases where the subsequent appellate forum has issued stay orders.

In a recent incident, customs officials seized a quantity of gold on suspicion of smuggling. However, during the investigation, the owner of the gold appeared and claimed that the perpetrator was transporting the gold to his shop in another city. Therefore, the customs officer allowed the release of the car used in the incident provided that a redemption fee was paid.

The aggrieved owner appealed to the tribunal, which partially allowed the appeal in respect of certain gold pieces that were not found to be of foreign origin, while maintaining the order regarding confiscated gold pieces found to be of foreign origin.

However, the Department preferred to appeal against this decision, refraining from implementing the tribunal’s partial exemption order. The aggrieved party appealed to the department and the case went to the Supreme Court, which ultimately decided against the department and ordered the implementation of the tribunal’s decision.

Sources of experts in customs law take the view that there is no doubt that the tribunal functions as a judicial authority within the limits of its jurisdiction: it has all the powers expressly conferred on it by statute; i.e. the Customs Act.

He further stated that as a judicial authority, it also has all the additional and subsidiary powers necessary to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it and to ensure full effectiveness of the grant of substantive statutory powers.

They added that such powers are considered incidental and ancillary not because they are inherent in the tribunal or because its jurisdiction is plenary, but because it is the intention of the legislature that powers expressly conferred within a designated area of jurisdiction should be effectively and significantly performed.