2026 S C M R 849

 2026 S C M R 849

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Miangul

Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ

The COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (ENFORCEMENT), ISLAMABAD --

-Petitioner

Versus

DANISH ZAHEER and others ---Respondents

Civil Petition No. 3110 of 2025, decided on 6th October, 2025.

(Against judgment dated 19.05.2025 of the Islamabad High Court,

Islamabad passed in Custom Reference No. 25 of 2024).

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S.179(3)---Order-in-original, passing of---Requisite time frame---

Scope---Extension of time---Scope---Record reflected that the Show

Cause Notice was issued on 27.04.2020 and 90 days limitation period

for issuing an order-in-original expired on 26.07.2020---The order-in-

original was passed on 10.08.2020 and hence was time barred---It

seemed that the Collector (adjudication) granted himself an extension

without recording reasons and hence under no stretch of imagination

could be considered as valid extension of time---Even otherwise such

extension had no application---No case for interference with the

impugned judgment of the High Court was made out---Leave to appeal

was refused.

(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss.2(s) & 179(3), proviso to---Smuggling, allegation of---Order-in-

original, passing of---Requisite time frame---Limitation---Scope---In a

case where Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, has been invoked, the

limitation under section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, after the date

of issuance of the show cause notice is 30 days and in such cases the

Collector is not vested with any kind of jurisdiction insofar as

extension of time in terms of section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, is

concerned---In the present case, the accusations in the Show Cause

Notice revolved around Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, which

was issued on 27.04.2020 and the order-in-original was passed on

10.08.2020---The Collector (Adjudication) and the Customs Appellate

Tribunal wrongly presumed that the period prescribed under Section

179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, for the purpose of issuing an order-in-

original in respect of cases brought under Section 2(s) of the Customs

Act, 1969, was also 90 days---The proviso to Section 179(3) of the

Customs Act, 1969,would make it clear that for goods falling in Section

2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, the requisite time-frame for passing

order-in-original is 30 days for which no extension was permitted in

the law---No case for interference with the impugned judgment of the

High Court was made out---Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Mumtaz Ali, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Rifaqat

Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record and Ashraf Ali, Chief Legal

Customs, FBR for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 6th October, 2025.

ORDER

MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.---We have heard the learned

counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

2. In this petition the primary question as emerge is of passing of an

order-in-original within the requisite time frame in terms of section

179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the the Act ).

3. There was a split judgment between Member (Judicial) and

Member (Technical) of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad

Bench-II (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) and therefore the

matter was referred to Referee Member of the Tribunal. The Member

(Judicial) found that the order-in-original was issued beyond the

prescribed period of limitation, whereas, the Member (Technical)

considered it to have been passed within time. The Referee Member

agreed with the Member (Judicial).

3.(sic) The record reflects that the show cause notice was issued on

27.04.2020 and 90 days limitation period for issuing an order-in-

original expired on 26.07.2020 (90 days). The order-in-original was

passed on 10.08.2020 and hence was time barred. It seems that the

Collector (adjudication) granted himself an extension without

recording reasons and hence under no stretch of imagination could be

considered as valid extension of time. Even otherwise this extension

has no application.

4. The question of the manner in which the limitation under section

179 (3) of the Act is to be determined in a case where section 2(s) of the

Act has been invoked, is apparent by plain reading of relevant proviso.

Where section 2(s) of the Act has been invoked, the limitation period

for issuing an order-in-original after the date of issuance of the show-

cause notice is 30 days and in such cases the Collector is not vested

with any kind of jurisdiction insofar as extension of time in terms of

section 179(3) of the Act is concerned. The accusations in the show

cause notice revolves around section 2(s) of the Act which was issued

on 27.04.2020 and the order-in-original was passed on 10.08.2020. The

Collector (Adjudication) and the Tribunal wrongly presumed that the

period prescribed under section 179(3) of the Act for the purpose of

issuing an order-in-original in respect of cases brought under section

2(s) of the Act is also 90 days which is incorrect. For convenience, we

reproduce section 179(3) and its proviso:

(3) The cases shall be decided within ninety days of the issuance of

show cause notice or within such period extended by the

Collector for which reasons shall be recorded in writing, but

such extended period shall in no case exceed sixty days. Provided that in cases, wherein the provision of clause (s) of the

section 2 have been invoked, such cases shall be decided within

a period of thirty days of the issuance of show cause notice:

5. Thus, the above proviso would make it clear that insofar as goods

falling in section 2(s) of the Act are concerned, the requisite time-

frame for passing order-in-original is 30 days for which no extension is

permitted in the law.

6. For the reasons noted above, we are not inclined to interfere with

the impugned judgment of the High Court. Consequently, this petition

is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

MQ/C-23/SC Petition dismissed.