LAHORE: Customs officials are allegedly flouting the orders of tribunals despite clear-cut directions from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to implement the orders passed by them.
According to the Customs General Order No.2 of 2024, the FBR has directed customs officials to implement orders by the tribunals or any other adjudicating forum except where stay orders have been issued by the next appellate forum.
In a recent incident, the customs officials had seized a certain quantity of gold with allegations of smuggling. However, the owner of the gold turned up during investigations and claimed that the culprit was transporting the gold to his shop in another city. Accordingly, the Collector of Customs allowed the release of car used in the incident but subject to the payment of a redemption fee.
The aggrieved owner approached the tribunal, which partially allowed the appeal to the extent of certain pieces of gold that were not found to be of foreign origin while maintaining the order regarding pieces of seized gold found to be of foreign origin.
However, the department preferred to challenge the decision while withholding the implementation of the tribunal’s order for partial release. The aggrieved party challenged the department and the matter went up to the apex court, which finally decided against the department and order for implementation of the order of the tribunal.
Sources from among the practitioners of the Customs Act are of the view that there is no doubt that the tribunal functions as a judicial body within the limits of its jurisdiction: It has all the powers expressly conferred upon it by the statute; i.e., the Customs Act.
Furthermore, they said, being a judicial body, it also possesses all those incidental and ancillary powers necessary for the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it and to make fully effective the grant of statutory substantive powers.
Such powers are recognised as incidental and ancillary, they added, not because they are inherent in the tribunal or because its jurisdiction is plenary but because it is the legislative intent that the power expressly granted in the assigned field of jurisdiction is efficaciously and meaningfully exercised.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments