Importer’s plea against seizure of 20 tonnes of betel nuts dismissed

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday dismissed the petition of an importer and mouth freshener company against the seizure of 20 tonnes of their betel nuts from their warehouse, and for quashing the FIR registered by the Customs.

Shalimar Food Products in their petition assailed the Customs’ raid on their premises and the seizure of their betel nuts allegedly without the due process of the law. The petitioner’s counsel said the company had imported 83.94 tonnes of betel nuts in 2019 but it was seized by the Customs, adding that the consignment was released after a court order. The counsel said the petitioner had also purchased 10 tonnes from local traders, and it was also imported lawfully.

However, he added, the Customs raided the petitioner’s factory without any search warrant and took 20 tonnes of betel nuts in violation of the law, despite the fact that once the goods are released, the Customs has no jurisdiction to re-examine the goods and seize them.

An SHC division bench headed by Justice Agha Faisal asked if defence was available to the petitioner before the court of competent jurisdiction presently seized with the matter. The counsel replied in the affirmative, but pointed out that since the high court exercises supervisory/constitutional jurisdiction, it may be just and proper for the determination to be rendered by this court.

The Customs counsel said that the proceedings with respect to the impugned actions are pending before the court of competent jurisdiction, so no case is made out for parallel concurrent recourse to writ jurisdiction.

The SHC said the petitioner has also seeks that this court quash any proceedings, including future FIRs, in respect of the present case. It said that the pivotal question is if the ordinary course of contextual criminal proceedings can be allowed to be deflected by resort to writ jurisdiction. The court said that it appears that while the FIR has been lodged and the matter is required to be determined by the court of the special judge (Customs & Taxation), proceedings are fettered due to ad interim orders bestowed herein.

It said the examination of the applicable law demonstrates that the special court has been conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and proceed as regards the relevant statutory offences, and such jurisdiction includes the domain to determine the viability of proceedings and the regulation of custody of the accused.

The court said that a special bench, being the special appellate court (Customs & Taxation), is also constituted at the high court, with exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters pertaining inter alia to appeals, references and revisions arising out of the special court.

It said that the governing statute also envisages a bar upon any court, other than the special court and the special bench, to entertain any application or petition or pass any order or give any direction with respect inter alia to bail, in regard to the relevant statutory offences.

The court said that the law also empowers the special court to dismiss a complaint on its own accord if found to be insufficient, besides an accused may also prefer an application seeking acquittal if it can be demonstrated that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the cited offence.

It said that orders so rendered are further assailable in appeal/revision before the special bench of the high court. It observed that in the presence of such adequate remedy, the condition precedent according to Article 199 of the constitution, being the absence of remedy, is prima facie not satisfied.

The court said that the ordinary course of criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be deflected by resort to writ jurisdiction. It said that statutory fora, being the special court and/or the special bench, are competent to determine the viability of the relevant criminal proceedings and regulate the custody of the accused. The SHC said that no case has been set forth to merit the invocation of the discretionary writ jurisdiction of this court in such regard, and dismissed the petition.