The Collector Of Customs Through Deputy Collector Of Customs Enforcement vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal etc.

Stereo. H C J D A-38.

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025

The Collector of Customs through Deputy Collector Customs, Collectorate of Customs (Enforcement), Custom House, Multan Versus

The Customs Appellate Tribunal, Division (Bench-I), Lahore & others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 13.10.2026.

Applicant by: Mian Muhammad Ishfaq Hussain, Advocate. Respondents by: Sardar Hafeez Ahmad, Advocate. Sheikh Nadeem Arshad, Advocate (for respondent No.2 in connected Customs Reference No.17 of 2025).

MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.:- Through this consolidated judgment, Customs Reference No. 16 of 2025, along with connected Customs Reference Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 2025, is being decided as these Reference Applications involve overlapping questions concerning confiscation of conveyances allegedly used for transportation of smuggled goods, the scope of Sections 157(2) and 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 (“the Act of 1969”), and the effect of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009, as amended. The controversy principally concerns the authority of the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal to release the subject vehicles against redemption fine notwithstanding the statutory restrictions imposed by the aforesaid notification.

QUESTIONS OF LAW

2.The following questions of law, arising out of the impugned judgments dated 09.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal, Special Division Bench-I, Lahore (“the

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases learned Appellate Tribunal”), have been pressed and argued for our opinion in these consolidated reference applications:-

CUSTOMS REFERENCE NO. 16 OF 2025

i. Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal, Division Bench-1, Lahore has misinterpreted the meaning and interpretation of clause (s) of Section 2 and Section 157(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, while releasing the vehicles in question, thereby defeating the clear intent of law?

ii. Whether the Learned Division Bench of the Customs Appellate Tribunal has not wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 157 (2) and failed to consider the SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 amended vide SRO 1619(I)/2024 dated 03.10.2024 while releasing the vehicles @ 40% redemption fine against the law/fact that vehicles were used exclusively and wholly for transportation of offending/smuggled goods falling under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969, carrying under self- created false cavities/ compartments?

iii. Whether the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Courts are not binding on the subordinate judiciary?

CONNECTED CUSTOMS REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 2025

i. Whether the vehicles which were to be confiscated under section 157 (1) (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 can be released when the goods loaded on the vehicles were proved to be smuggled as defined under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, ii. Whether the learned Customs Appellate Tribunal has not wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 157 (1) (2) and failed to consider the SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 amended vide SRO 1619(I)/2024 dated 03.10.2024 while releasing the vehicles @ 40% redemption fine against the law/fact that vehicles were used exclusively and wholly for transportation of offending/smuggled goods falling under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, carrying under self-created false cavities/compartments?

iii. Whether the Board (FBR) under the 'provisos' to the explanation of Section 181 of the Act, has not issued various orders (SROs), expressly prohibiting, inter alia, the release of confiscated vehicle used for carrying smuggled goods on payment of redemption fine?

iv. Whether the initial onus to prove valid importation and payment of duties and taxes or even its lawful possession is not upon the persons in possession of the said questionable goods under section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969?

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases v. Whether the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Courts are not binding on the subordinate judiciary?

CONNECTED CUSTOMS REFERENCE NO. 18 OF 2025

i. Whether the Learned Division Bench of the Customs Appellate Tribunal has not wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 157(2) and failed to consider the SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 amended vide SRO 1619(1)/2024 dated 03.10.2024 while releasing the vehicles @ 40% redemption fine against the law/fact that vehicles were used exclusively and wholly for transportation of offending/smuggled goods falling under clause(s) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969, carrying under self-created false cavities/ compartments?

ii. Whether the Learned Division Bench of the Customs Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by releasing vehicles against redemption fine which were carrying smuggled goods under false cavities i.e. in the altered body of trucks by creating false cavities and hidden compartments, despite clear/mandatory legal position envisaged in clauses (b) and (ba) of SRO 499(1)/2009 dated 13.06.2009?

CONNECTED CUSTOMS REFERENCE NO. 19 OF 2025

i. Whether the learned Division Bench of the Customs Appellate Tribunal has not wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 157(2) and failed to consider the SRO 499(I)/2009 amended vide SRO 1619(I)/2024 dated 03.10.2024 while releasing the vehicles @ 40% redemption fine against the law/fact that vehicle was used exclusively and wholly for transportation of offending/ smuggled goods falling under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969, carrying under self-created false cavities/ compartments?

ii. Whether the learned Division Bench of the Customs Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by releasing vehicle against redemption fine which was carrying F/o smuggled offending goods under false cavities i.e in the altered body of trucks by creating false cavities and hidden compartments, despite clear/ mandatory legal position envisaged in clauses (b) and (ba) of SRO 499(1)/2009 dated 13.06.2009?

iii. Whether the learned Division Bench of the Customs Appellate Tribunal has not failed to appreciate that imposition of confiscation of the vehicle was under the law as prescribed in SRO 499(I)/2009 and no discretion left with the learned Members of the Customs Tribunal to release redemption fine @ 40% on its own discretion? (2004 SCMR 456)

iv. Whether the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Courts are not binding on the subordinate judiciary?

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases

FACTS

A. REFERENCES NOS. 16, 18 AND 19 (ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL

NO. 103/2025)

3.On 04.12.2024, the Anti-Smuggling Organization, Multan, intercepted seven ten-wheeler trucks, reportedly transporting Army unit luggage from Quetta to Sialkot, and recovered foreign-origin monosodium glutamate/Chinese salt, skimmed milk powder and betel nuts. The goods were seized under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 (“the Act”), and the vehicles under Section 157(1) and (2). The learned Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Faisalabad, vide Order- in-Original No. 103/2025 dated 10.02.2025, ordered confiscation of the goods and vehicles bearing Registration Nos. TKU-744, TKC- 006, TKE-232, TAL-918, TKZ-011, TKM-335 and TKN-281. The learned Appellate Tribunal, through judgments dated 09.09.2025 and 22.09.2025 in Customs Reference Nos. 16, 18 and 19 of 2025, respectively, permitted release of the seven vehicles against redemption fine at 40% of their assessed values. It also allowed release of 250 bags of skimmed milk powder against redemption fine at 20%, along with applicable duties and taxes, in Reference No. 18 of 2025. The department challenges the redemption of the vehicles as contrary to the statutory prohibition under Section 181 read with S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended. Its challenge concerning the 250 bags of skimmed milk powder has not been pressed and, therefore, remains outside the controversy.

B. REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 17 (ORDER-IN-

ORIGINAL NO. 249/2025)

4.Reference No. 17 of 2025 arises from the interception of Hino truck No. TAM-184 near Tranda Muhammad Panah, carrying used automobile parts, tyres, approximately 31,797 kilograms of iron scrap and five diesel pumps. The driver produced only bilty No. 674 dated 04.01.2025, describing the consignment as “local scrap”, without a goods declaration, sales tax invoice, transport permit or satisfactory proof of lawful import or acquisition. The learned Collector of

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases Customs (Adjudication), Faisalabad, ordered confiscation of the goods and vehicle vide Order-in-Original No. 249/2025 dated 11.03.2025. By judgment dated 09.09.2025, the learned Appellate Tribunal condoned the appeal's delay, found the goods to be of foreign origin and held that the burden under Section 187 of the Act had not been discharged; nevertheless, it permitted redemption of the goods at 20%, plus duties and taxes, and the vehicle at 40% of its assessed value. The department challenges the vehicle's release and the grant of redemption of the goods without determining the applicable statutory restrictions.

REASONING OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS

5.The learned Appellate Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the expression “liable to confiscation” in Section 157(2) did not invariably require outright confiscation and permitted redemption of the vehicles by imposing fines calculated as percentages of their assessed values. In Reference No. 17 of 2025, it likewise allowed redemption of the goods despite finding that the burden under Section 187 had not been discharged. The department contends that this approach overlooks the restrictions imposed by Section 181 read with S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended, and substitutes considerations of convenience and proportionality for the governing statutory requirements.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

6.Learned counsel for the applicant-department submits that the impugned judgments are contrary to the first proviso to Section 181 of the Act and S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended by S.R.O. 1619(I)/2024 dated 03.10.2024. It is argued that the notification restricts the availability of redemption in specified classes of cases and that the learned Appellate Tribunal could not exercise a discretion which the law has expressly withheld. Reliance is placed upon Bashir Ahmad v. Director, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs), FBR, Peshawar and another (2025 SCMR 684) and Director, Intelligence and Investigation (Customs), FBR, Peshawar and others

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases v. Muhammad Ishaq and others (2026 SCMR 885). He further argues that the legal status of each conveyance must be examined under clauses (b) and (ba) of the notification and that the absence of proof of a false cavity does not, by itself, exclude the application of clause (ba). In Customs Reference No. 17 of 2025, the department additionally submits that the failure to establish lawful import or acquisition of the goods, as recorded by the learned Appellate Tribunal itself, could not be overlooked while permitting their redemption without determining the applicable statutory restrictions.

7.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments on the ground that confiscation is not invariably automatic merely because a conveyance is found carrying offending goods. Reliance is placed upon Haji Abdul Razzak v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another (PLD 1974 Supreme Court 5), the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 22.07.2025 in Customs Reference No. 132-P/2025, and the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 685-P of 2025 titled Collector of Customs (Enforcement) v. Malang Khan. He contends that confiscation of a valuable vehicle for carrying goods of comparatively lesser value may be disproportionate, particularly where the owner or driver denies knowledge of the goods or involvement in smuggling.

ANALYSIS

8.Arguments heard. Record perused.

STATUTORY SCHEME

9.Section 157(2) of the Act of 1969 renders a conveyance used in the movement of smuggled goods liable to confiscation. Section 181 ordinarily empowers the adjudicating authority to offer an option of payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, subject to its first proviso, under which the Federal Board of Revenue may specify classes of goods or cases in which such an option shall not be given. In exercise of that statutory power, the Board issued S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009. The relevant provisions, as amended,

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases restrict the availability of redemption in specified cases, including those concerning smuggled goods falling within Section 2(s) and qualifying lawfully registered conveyances used for their transportation.

10.Clause (b) addresses lawfully registered conveyances, including packages and containers, found carrying smuggled goods in false cavities or used exclusively or wholly for transporting offending goods within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Clause (ba), as substituted by S.R.O. 1619(I)/2024 dated 03.10.2024, covers lawfully registered conveyances, including packages and containers, other than those falling under clause (b), if seized and found carrying smuggled goods. The statutory scheme, therefore, distinguishes between the general liability of a conveyance to confiscation under Section 157(2) and the availability of an option to redeem it under Section 181. The latter provision must be applied subject to the restrictions validly imposed by the Board. The general expression “liable to confiscation” cannot be interpreted in isolation so as to nullify an express statutory restriction upon redemption.

11.The distinction between clauses (b) and (ba) is material. Clause (b) contains specific requirements relating to false cavities or exclusive or wholly offending use. Clause (ba), in contrast, applies to qualifying lawfully registered conveyances falling outside clause (b), provided they are seized and found carrying smuggled goods. The requirements of false cavities or exclusive use cannot be imported into clause (ba), nor can the latter be applied without establishing its own ingredients.

12.The seizures in the present references took place after the substitution of clause (ba) on 03.10.2024. Accordingly, the amended provision is relevant to the controversy. Its application, however, must rest upon the established facts concerning the status of the goods and the conveyance concerned, rather than upon the mere fact that a vehicle was intercepted during a customs operation.

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases

BINDING EFFECT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

13.In Bashir Ahmad’s case supra, the Honourable Supreme Court examined the relationship between Sections 157(2) and 181 of the Act of 1969 and the restrictions imposed by S.R.O. 499(I)/2009. It held that, where a conveyance falls within a category for which redemption has been barred by the notification, the Appellate Tribunal cannot restore the prohibited option by relying upon the general language of Section 157(2). The principle was further considered in Muhammad Ishaq’s case supra, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court addressed the effect of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, particularly as amended by S.R.O. 1619(I)/2024. The Court rejected the interpretation that the expression “liable to confiscation” preserves an unrestricted discretion to release a qualifying conveyance against redemption fine. It held that the amended notification restored the prohibition against redemption of conveyances falling within its scope and that the adjudicating and appellate fora could not exercise a power expressly withheld by law. These judgments settle the governing legal principle. Where the conditions of the applicable clause are established, the question is not whether redemption fine at 20%, 40% or any other percentage would be fair or proportionate. Rather, the question is whether the law permits redemption at all. If the applicable statutory prohibition operates, no discretion remains with the adjudicating authority or the Appellate Tribunal to release the conveyance against payment of a fine.

14.The respondents' reliance upon Haji Abdul Razzak’s case supra does not displace this conclusion. That case concerned the exercise of statutory discretion under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, in its own factual and legal setting. The general proposition that a discretionary power must be exercised judicially and fairly remains unexceptionable. However, such a principle cannot confer jurisdiction where the governing statute, read with a valid notification issued under it, expressly excludes the relevant option. Likewise, the relative values of the vehicle and the goods, the plea of bona fide carriage, the

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases asserted absence of personal knowledge, or the vehicle's use as a source of livelihood cannot, by themselves, create a power of redemption where the statutory prohibition applies. Equitable considerations may be relevant where the law leaves a discretion to be exercised; they cannot override an express statutory bar.

15.The judgment dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Peshawar High Court in Customs Reference No. 132-P/2025 and the subsequent order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 685-P of 2025, titled Collector of Customs (Enforcement) v. Malang Khan, must also be considered in their proper context. The underlying matter concerned a passenger bus carrying passengers' baggage and foreign-origin goods, including questions relating to the owner's involvement.

16.The refusal of leave to appeal must be respected in the context of the case in which it was made. However, unless a particular question of law was expressly or necessarily decided, a proposition beyond the scope of the order cannot be attributed to it. The said order cannot, therefore, be read as establishing a general entitlement to redemption notwithstanding an applicable statutory prohibition, particularly in the face of the subsequent, directly relevant pronouncement in Muhammad Ishaq’s case supra.

APPLICATION TO CUSTOMS REFERENCE NOS. 16, 18 AND

19 OF 2025

17.In these Reference Applications, the learned Appellate Tribunal permitted release of seven vehicles against redemption fine. The department's case is that the vehicles were lawfully registered, were seized after the substitution of clause (ba), and were found carrying smuggled goods. If these foundational facts stand established on the record, and the vehicles otherwise fall within clause (ba), redemption is barred notwithstanding the absence of proof of false cavities or exclusive use. The fact that the vehicles were carrying several categories of goods, rather than a single commodity, does not by itself exclude clause (ba). The decisive consideration is whether the

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases conveyances satisfy the requirements of that clause. Equally, where the department relies upon clause (b), its additional requirements must be established in respect of the particular vehicle concerned.

18.In Collector of Customs, Multan v. Abdul Bari [(2026 LHC 6041 (LHC Website)], this Court, following Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ishaq, held that the Appellate Tribunal cannot order release of a conveyance contrary to the statutory prohibition imposed under S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended. The Court also explained that the monetary threshold contained in one limb of Section 2(s) cannot be treated as a universal qualification governing the entire definition of “smuggled goods”. The principle is directly relevant. The legal status of the recovered goods must be determined under the appropriate limb of Section 2(s), and the consequences for the conveyance must then be assessed under Sections 157(2) and 181, read with the applicable clause of the notification. The relative value of the goods, as compared with that of the vehicle, does not independently confer jurisdiction to permit redemption.

19.Consequently, the directions permitting redemption of the seven vehicles cannot be sustained if the requirements of the applicable prohibition stand established. The record must, however, support the necessary findings concerning the relevant statutory conditions. The legal consequence of those findings is governed by the binding judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, and the imposition of a redemption fine cannot cure an order passed without lawful authority.

20.The department has not pressed its challenge to the release of 250 bags of skimmed milk powder ordered by the learned Appellate Tribunal in Customs Reference No. 18 of 2025. That part of the impugned judgment is, therefore, not under consideration and shall remain undisturbed. No opinion is expressed on the merits of that unpressed challenge.

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases

APPLICATION TO CUSTOMS REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 2025

21.In Customs Reference No. 17 of 2025, the learned Appellate Tribunal found that the goods recovered from truck No. TAM-184 were of foreign origin and that the respondent had failed to discharge the burden imposed by Section 187 of the Act of 1969. The only document identified was bilty No. 674 dated 04.01.2025, describing the consignment as “local scrap”. No goods declaration, sales tax invoice, transport permit or satisfactory documentary proof of lawful import or acquisition was produced. These findings were material to the determination of the legal status of the goods. Nevertheless, foreign origin and failure to discharge the burden under Section 187 must be considered in the context of the applicable statutory definition; the relevant limb of Section 2(s) and its ingredients must be identified. A legally consistent determination was also required regarding the effect of the prohibition contained in S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended.

As regards truck No. TAM-184, if it is established to be a lawfully registered conveyance seized and found carrying goods falling within Section 2(s), clause (ba) applies unless the vehicle falls within clause (b), in which event the requirements of that clause govern. Once the applicable conditions are established, the Appellate Tribunal cannot permit redemption against payment of a fine.

22.The question concerning the goods carried in truck No. TAM- 184 requires separate consideration. The notification also restricts redemption of goods falling within Section 2(s). Accordingly, the permission to redeem the iron scrap and diesel pumps could not lawfully be granted without determining their status under the relevant limb of Section 2(s) and the effect of the applicable statutory restriction. The distinction is important: the statutory status of the goods and that of the conveyance are interrelated, but the legal consequences applicable to each must be determined under the relevant provisions. The finding under Section 187 cannot simply be ignored, nor can it dispense with the need to identify the applicable

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases limb of Section 2(s). A limited remand is, therefore, warranted to determine these matters and to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

MONETARY THRESHOLD UNDER SECTION 2(S)

23.In Abdul Bari supra, this Court held that the monetary threshold contained in Section 2(s)(ii) cannot be treated as a universal qualification governing every independent limb of the definition of “smuggled goods”. The statutory definition comprises distinct categories, each operating according to its own ingredients. A condition attached to one limb cannot be imported into another in a manner that renders the latter ineffective.

Consequently, the value of the recovered goods is not, by itself, conclusive of their status under Section 2(s). The applicable limb and its ingredients must first be examined. Once the goods are found to fall within the statutory definition, the consequences for the conveyance must be determined under Sections 157(2) and 181, read with the relevant notification. This construction neither dispenses with the requirement of establishing the statutory ingredients nor permits redemption where the law expressly prohibits it.

SCOPE OF REFERENCE JURISDICTION

24.The Appellate Tribunal is ordinarily the final forum for appraisal of evidence. A reference under Section 196 of the Act of 1969 is not an appeal permitting unrestricted reassessment of factual findings. Nevertheless, where the Tribunal applies an incorrect legal test, overlooks a material statutory restriction, or reaches a conclusion inconsistent with the legal consequences of its own findings, a question of law arises for determination by this Court. In the present matters, the controversy is not resolved merely by establishing that foreign-origin goods were recovered from the vehicles. The statutory status of the goods and the conveyances must be determined under the applicable provisions. Once the ingredients of the relevant clause of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended, are established, however, the Appellate Tribunal cannot circumvent the resulting prohibition by

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases imposing a redemption fine. The legal question must be answered accordingly, while any factual determination necessary to apply that answer must remain confined to the scope of the reference and the record.

BINDING FORCE OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT

25.The third question is answered by reference to Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, under which decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court are binding on all other authorities / Courts to the extent provided therein. The ratio decidendi of a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court cannot be disregarded by a subordinate Court or tribunal merely because another view appears more equitable or preferable. Accordingly, the legal principles laid down in Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ishaq must be applied to the present references. The Appellate Tribunal could not lawfully permit redemption in disregard of the applicable statutory prohibition. The binding force of these judgments does not, however, dispense with the need to establish the factual and statutory conditions necessary for their application in each case.

ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF LAW

26.For the foregoing reasons, the questions of law are answered as follows:— i. Sections 157(2) and 181 of the Act of 1969: Where the conditions of the applicable clause of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended, are established, the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant redemption contrary to the statutory prohibition. Answered in favour of the applicant-department.

ii. Clauses (b) and (ba) of the notification: Clause (b) requires proof of its specified ingredients concerning false cavities or exclusive or wholly offending use. Clause (ba) operates independently and does not require proof of those additional ingredients, provided its own statutory conditions are fulfilled. Answered accordingly.

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases iii. Binding effect of precedent: The principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Bashir Ahmad and Muhammad Ishaq are binding in accordance with Article 189 of the Constitution and must be applied to cases falling within their scope. Answered in favour of the applicant-department.

iv. Customs Reference No. 17 of 2025—truck No. TAM-184: Redemption of the vehicle cannot be sustained if the conditions of the applicable statutory prohibition are established. The necessary factual and statutory requirements must be determined in accordance with the principles set out above.

v. Customs Reference No. 17 of 2025—iron scrap and diesel pumps: The permissibility of redemption requires a fresh, limited determination of the goods' status under the applicable limb of Section 2(s) and the effect of the relevant statutory restriction. The matter is remitted for a speaking order after hearing the parties. vi. Section 2(s) of the Act of 1969: The monetary threshold prescribed in one limb of the definition of “smuggled goods” cannot be applied indiscriminately to every other limb. The ingredients of the applicable statutory category must be examined.

vii. Authorities relied upon by the respondents: The general principles of judicial discretion and proportionality do not confer a power of redemption expressly withheld by law. The order in Malang Khan must be respected in its proper context but cannot be construed as authorizing redemption contrary to an applicable statutory prohibition.

RESULT

27.Customs Reference No. 16 of 2025 and connected Customs Reference Nos. 18 and 19 of 2025 are allowed to the extent of the challenge concerning release of the vehicles. The impugned judgments dated 09.09.2025 and 22.09.2025, insofar as they permitted redemption of vehicles bearing Registration Nos. TKU-744, TKC- 006, TKE-232, TAL-918, TKZ-011, TKM-335 and TKN-281, are set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Appellate Tribunal for the

Customs Reference No.16 of 2025 & connected cases limited purpose of determining, on the existing record and in accordance with law, whether the statutory conditions attracting the prohibition under the applicable clause of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, as amended, stand established in respect of each vehicle. Where those conditions are established, the order of outright confiscation shall follow, as no option of redemption is legally available. The direction permitting release of 250 bags of skimmed milk powder in Customs Reference No. 18 of 2025 remains undisturbed, as the department did not press its challenge to that part of the judgment. Customs Reference No. 17 of 2025 is partly allowed. The direction permitting redemption of truck No. TAM-184 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned Appellate Tribunal for the limited determination of the foundational statutory requirements governing the vehicle, in the light of the findings already recorded and the principles laid down in this judgment. The question of redemption of the iron scrap and diesel pumps is also remitted for determination of their status under the applicable limb of Section 2(s) and the effect of the relevant statutory restriction. The learned Appellate Tribunal shall hear the parties and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The remand shall not be treated as conferring any discretion to grant redemption where the applicable statutory prohibition is established.

28.Office shall send a copy of this judgment, under the seal of the Court, to the learned Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 196(5) of the Customs Act, 1969.

(Sultan Tanvir Ahmad) (Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi) Judge Judge

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

Judge Judge

*A.H.S.*