LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that a warrantless search cannot be conducted on an apprehension that the goods might be shifted or converted into marketable articles.
The court passed this order in a petition of the director (I&I) customs challenging the decision of the chairman appellate tribunal who set aside the decision of additional collector customs, directing to release the goods to the lawful owner against payment of fine, together with the leviable duties and taxes.
The court observed that the mere fact that a court is stated to be closed at a particular time cannot automatically establish that the goods were in danger of removal before a search could be effected.
The court said that the alleged risk of transformation may form part of the surrounding circumstances, where supported by evidence, but cannot replace the statutory requirement.
The failure to follow the mandatory statutory conditions governing the exercise of the power of search renders the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 163 is an illegal and void, the court added.
The court said that the applicant-department was required to demonstrate that the circumstances relied upon satisfied statutory condition for dispensing with a warrant.
The court also noted that the department had failed to establish service of notice upon the person concerned in connection with the seizure.
The court said that the relevant record must disclose, to the extent required by the statute, the identity of the recipient, the nature of the document served and the manner in which service was effected.
The court said that in the present case, the applicant-department’s principal contention is that the receipt of information after ordinary court hours, coupled with the alleged presence of a furnace or burner near the godown, justified immediate action.
The court said that the effective enforcement of customs law and adherence to the procedure prescribed by the legislature are complementary requirements, not competing considerations.
The court remarked that the statutory safeguards cannot be diluted merely because the action was undertaken in the course of preventing smuggling or resulted in the recovery of a substantial quantity of foreign-origin goods.
The court also said that the urgency asserted by the department must also be demonstrably connected to that statutory condition and supported by the contemporaneous record.
The court said that the legality of the action must be assessed on the basis of the authority available and the statutory conditions fulfilled at the time of the search.
The court observed that the applicant department has not established a sufficient legal basis for setting aside the impugned decision.
The court, therefore, upheld the decision of the referee judge/chairman appellate tribunal and directed the office to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments