LAHORE: A recent confiscation of a vehicle has raised questions about the effectiveness of Customs enforcement and the need for greater transparency and accountability in the confiscation and redemption of vehicles.
The incident has highlighted the issue of smuggling petroleum products, which can lead to significant revenue losses for the government and undermine the economy.
It has further highlighted the importance of ensuring that redemption proceedings are fair and that vehicle owners are not unfairly penalized.
According to sources, Customs authorities had received a tip-off about a Hino truck carrying foreign-origin diesel oil concealed under a load of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The truck was spotted and intercepted at the Customs staff. The driver and cleaner claimed they were only carrying LPG, but a search revealed 49,770 litres of diesel oil hidden in a specially designed tank. The goods and vehicle were seized, and the accused persons were arrested. The seized goods and vehicle were valued at Rs 7,005,094 and Rs 12,500,000, respectively.
The department claimed the truck’s tank was specially designed to conceal the oil. However, photos of the vehicle don’t show any unusual design or hidden cavities.
It may be noted that the competent forums have already ruled that confiscating a vehicle is meant to penalize smugglers, not the vehicle’s owner, unless they are proven to be involved. Accordingly, the owner was given the option to redeem the vehicle by paying a 20% redemption fine and a personal penalty of Rs 25,000.
The Collectorate of Customs appealed against the decision on the ground that the vehicle was used for smuggling and should not be released. Also, he pleaded that the vehicle had a specially designed tank to hide the smuggled oil. The last ground taken by the department was that the law (SRO 499(1)/2009) does not allow redemption of vehicles used for smuggling or with false cavities.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal while relying upon a settled principle that stated a vehicle cannot be assumed to have false cavities without evidence.
Also, since no fresh evidence was presented, the tribunal upheld the original decision, allowing the vehicle’s owner to redeem it.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.