‘Modifying order-in-original’: Plea challenging decision of customs official allowed

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) observed that judicial or quasi-judicial authority cannot change its determination in adjudication after signing judgment, order and decree and set aside the impugned order of an additional collector custom, who modified the order-in-original for release of mobile phones.

The court allowed the petition of Amir Khan challenging the decision of an additional collector order for release of the mobile phones on payment of leviable, taxes and redemption fine and later modifying the order-in-original substitute the individual personal penalties of rupees ten thousand with the total personal penalty of rupees 7922048.

The official ordered to release the mobile sets subject to issuance of either a Certificate of Conformity (COC) or in the alternative No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).

The court declared the impugned corrigendum as ultra vires and said the respondent had no suo-moto power to modify the order-in-original particularly in absence of any application from the aggrieved party requesting such modification.

The court said once the matter was adjudicated upon by the respondent, there remains no further force or authority with the judicial or quasi-judicial authority and it could not unilaterally modify the order-in-original unless and until the matter was remanded by the appellate authority or any other higher forum.

The court observed that under the Custom Act the power to rectify the order-in-original vests exclusively in the Customs Appellate Tribunal and same is exercisable only upon a mistake apparent on record being duly brought before the tribunal by a party to an appeal.

According to the details the petitioners had duly deposited the leviable duties, taxes and redemption fine; however, the subject mobile phones were not released.

The petitioners approached the august court which directed to the respondents to comply with the order-in-original.

The respondents did not comply with the court’s order, resultantly, a petition was filed again.

However, during its pendency the impugned corrigendum was promulgated which substantively altered the order-in-original.

The petitioner; therefore, approached the court again and got relief.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025