ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that shelled almonds and cashew nuts do not fall within any of the categories of smuggled goods specified in S.R.O. 566(I)/2005.
The judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, stated that the subject goods do not fall within the relevant definition of smuggled goods under section 2(s)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1969 on the basis of the notification.
It follows that the prohibition contained in the proviso to S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009, insofar as it restricts the redemption of a vehicle used for the carriage of smuggled goods, would not be attracted on that basis. Confiscation of the vehicle on this ground would be sustainable only if the subject goods fell within the categories specified in the aforesaid notification and consequently satisfied the relevant requirements of section 2(s)(ii) of the Act.
A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, and comprising Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, heard an appeal of the Collector of Customs MCC (Enforcement), Quetta against the judgment of the Balochistan High Court (BHC) dated 30.09.2025.
The judgment noted that the text and scheme of the notification do not support such an extension. Were the expression to be construed as encompassing every conceivable food item, the separate entries relating to edible oil at Serial No. 11, black tea at Serial No. 35, and vegetable ghee and cooking oil at Serial No. 43 would lose their distinct significance.
It said that the notification itself demonstrates that the issuing authority has identified particular categories of goods separately rather than subsuming them under an unrestricted general description. The same approach is apparent from the separate identification of goods at Serial Nos. 30, 37, 38, 45 and 46, which might otherwise be described broadly as electronic items, but have instead been specified under distinct categories. Likewise, imitation jewellery and stones at Serial No. 19 and artificial jewellery at Serial No.32 have been separately identified, although they might arguably be described under a broader description. “This scheme reinforces the view that the expression in Serial No. 15 cannot be extended by implication to encompass a distinct category of goods that has not been included therein.”
In respect of edible goods and beverages, the notification refers, inter alia, to food grains and food items of all sorts at Serial No. 15, black tea, except Op-Pekoe, at Serial No. 35, and vegetable ghee and cooking oil at Serial No. 43. There was nothing to prevent the competent authority from expressly including nuts as a separate category of goods, particularly as they are distinguishable from grains. In their ordinary sense, grains include cereals such as wheat, rice, maize (corn), barley, oats, millet and sorghum. The category may also encompass pulses and legumes, including lentils, chickpeas, peas, beans and mung beans. The brief facts are that on 20.10.2024, the Customs authorities, acting upon information regarding the illegal removal of goods from NLC Terminal, Taftan, intercepted vehicles carrying almonds without shell and cashew nuts of foreign origin at Nokundi. The Goods Declaration produced by the drivers was found to be inconsistent with the customs record, as the relevant declaration pertained to raisins of Iranian origin and the vehicle particulars differed.
The proceedings were initiated against the goods and the vehicles on allegations of smuggling and illegal removal from the customs area. The Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Quetta, ordered outright confiscation of the goods and the vehicles. On appeal, the Customs Appellate Tribunal, Quetta, through its respective orders, permitted the release of the goods subject to payment of leviable duties and taxes along with a redemption fine of 20% of their customs value, while setting aside the confiscation of the vehicles.
The Department challenged these orders before the BHC through Customs Reference Applications and connected proceedings. The High Court dismissed the Department’s challenges. Hence, the instant petitions before the apex court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments