LAHORE: In a significant overhaul of the Customs Act, 1969, the federal government has approved multiple amendments aimed at tightening smuggling controls, digitizing cargo movement, and streamlining auction procedures.
While the new laws bring in innovative mechanisms like the e-Bilty tracking system and the establishment of Digital Enforcement Stations, they fall short in offering protection to traders wrongly penalized in customs cases.
One of the key changes allows customs authorities to sell goods even before the conclusion of adjudication, appeal, or court decisions. In cases where goods are later deemed not liable to confiscation, the law states that the proceeds of the auction—after deduction of duties, taxes, transportation, and other charges—will be returned to the owner.
However, no compensation mechanism or punitive action is outlined against customs officials or authorities who wrongly seized the goods, potentially causing massive financial and reputational losses to legitimate traders.
This legal vacuum has raised concerns among business stakeholders who argue that the amendment, while appearing trader-friendly, does not go far enough. “If a businessman’s lawful goods are sold and later found to be legal, why is the government only returning the balance after expenses? Where is the penalty for the officer who mishandled the case?” questioned a Lahore-based importer, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The law also empowers customs to destroy perishable or hazardous goods at any time and to re-export banned or restricted goods if they remain unclaimed for 60 days. It introduces the mandatory use of an e-Bilty (electronic bilty) and cargo tracking system, with severe penalties—up to Rs. 1 million and six months’ imprisonment—for failing to comply or tampering with tracking devices.
Additionally, courts are now barred from staying auction proceedings unless 50% of the reserve price is deposited via pay order or bank guarantee, a measure aimed at curbing misuse of judicial relief. The Customs Command Fund has also been introduced to financially support anti-smuggling efforts.
Despite these procedural improvements, the lack of accountability in wrongful confiscation cases and no mention of restitution for business losses expose a critical flaw in the legal framework. Legal experts suggest that until there are deterrents for misuse of authority, the reforms will remain lopsided.
