The Supreme Court of Pakistan recently ruled on Civil Petition No. 3326 of 2022, which arose from a longstanding dispute regarding the release of a Toyota Hilux Surf vehicle. The case, initiated by the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, FBR, Islamabad, challenged a decision initially made by the Collectorate of Customs (Adjudication), Islamabad.
On 28 February 2019, the Collector had ordered the release of the said vehicle, which was a 1996 model registered in Rawalpindi, to its owner based on specific conditions outlined in paragraph 15 of the adjudication order. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioner appealed the decision to the Customs Appellate Tribunal in Islamabad, which upheld the Collector’s original order in a judgment dated 11 August 2020.
Undeterred, the petitioner pursued a Customs Reference before the Islamabad High Court, which was heard and subsequently dismissed by a bench of two learned judges on 4 July 2022. This meant that the petitioner faced three consecutive legal defeats on the same matter. Despite these outcomes, the petitioner then filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court, although the Court found no new legal reasoning or justification for entertaining the matter. The grounds presented revolved around factual disputes, which are typically not entertained at the level of the Supreme Court, particularly after being reviewed by lower judicial forums. As a result, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa, who authored the order, expressed disappointment over the unnecessary use of judicial resources for what was essentially a frivolous and repetitive litigation. He emphasized the waste of public funds and judicial time, noting that such costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers. Moreover, the Court pointed out the trivial nature of the subject vehicle, which was relatively old and not of significant value, further underlining the disproportionate legal pursuit undertaken by the petitioner.
During the proceedings, a significant issue was also raised regarding the status of the vehicle. The Court asked whether the vehicle had been returned to its owner, only to be informed by Mr. Faiz Ahmed, Director General, Directorate of Customs, that the vehicle was still in their custody. Further questioning revealed that there had been no stay order from the High Court at any stage of the proceedings, making the continued retention of the vehicle unlawful.
The Supreme Court found this act by the petitioner to be a violation of legal propriety and emphasized that no legal grounds existed for withholding the vehicle after the adjudication order and subsequent confirmations by the Tribunal and High Court.
In response, the Supreme Court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed a fine of fifty thousand rupees on the petitioner. This amount was directed to be paid to the vehicle’s owner as compensation for the inconvenience and unlawful retention of property.
Furthermore, the Court ordered the immediate return of the vehicle to its rightful owner. A copy of this order was also instructed to be sent to the private respondents for their information. The Court concluded with a stern warning to the Collectorate of Customs to avoid filing such meritless cases in the future, stressing that judicial time and public money should be preserved and respected.
