Almonds and Cashew Nuts Outside SRO 566: Supreme Court Upholds Vehicle Release

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

Supreme Court rejects Customs’ challenge to the vehicle releases

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that almonds without shell and cashew nuts fall outside the categories specified in SRO 566(I)/2005. On that basis, the restriction on vehicle redemption relied on by Customs under SRO 499(I)/2009 did not apply. The Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the Department’s six petitions. Order, paragraphs 7–8.

The order in Collector of Customs v. Abdul Aziz and connected cases is dated 8 October 2026. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui wrote it for a bench comprising Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Siddiqui and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb. It concerns Civil Petitions Nos. 283-Q to 285-Q and 117-Q to 119-Q of 2025. Order, pages 1–2 and 5.

The ruling turns on the wording of the notification and the relevant limb of the statutory definition of smuggling. It does not remove import controls or excuse payment of duties and taxes. Order, paragraphs 2 and 5–7.

Why the goods and vehicles were seized

Customs intercepted vehicles at Nokundi on 20 October 2024 after receiving information about illegal removal of goods from NLC Terminal, Taftan. The vehicles carried foreign-origin almonds without shell and cashew nuts. The Goods Declaration produced by the drivers did not match the customs record: the relevant declaration concerned Iranian raisins, and the vehicle particulars differed. Order, paragraphs 2.

The Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Quetta, ordered outright confiscation of the goods and vehicles. The Customs Appellate Tribunal allowed release of the goods upon payment of leviable duties and taxes plus a redemption fine equal to 20 per cent of their customs value. It also set aside confiscation of the vehicles. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the Department’s challenges, after which Customs approached the Supreme Court. Order, paragraphs 2.

The distinction between the goods and the vehicles matters. The 20 per cent fine described in the order related to the goods’ customs value; it should not be reported as a new Supreme Court rule fixing a 20 per cent vehicle-release fine. Order, paragraphs 2 and 8.

Why “food items, all sorts” did not include these nuts

Customs relied on Serial No. 15 of SRO 566(I)/2005, dated 6 June 2005. That entry refers to foodgrains and food items of all sorts. The Department argued that the almonds and cashew nuts came within that description and consequently within section 2(s)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1969. Order, paragraphs 3.

The Court rejected an interpretation based solely on the goods being edible. Applying ejusdem generis, it read the general expression in the context of the preceding class of foodgrains. In simple terms, general words following a particular class take their meaning from that class. On this reading, the entry could cover different varieties of foodgrains, but not the distinct category of nuts. Order, paragraphs 4.

The notification’s structure supported that conclusion. It separately identified edible oil, black tea, vegetable ghee and cooking oil. Treating Serial No. 15 as covering every imaginable food item would deprive those separate entries of their significance. The Court also referred to separately listed categories of electronic goods and jewellery to explain why a broad description could not absorb every related item. Order, paragraphs 6.

The holding concerns the two goods before the Court: almonds without shell and cashew nuts. It should not be enlarged into a ruling about every type of nut or every possible customs notification. Order, paragraphs 4 and 7.

Import restrictions did not establish the smuggling classification

The Court acknowledged that the Import Policy Order, 2022 imposed restrictions and compliance requirements on importing the goods. Those restrictions did not, by themselves, make the goods smuggled goods under the relevant definition. For this dispute, the statutory question depended on the notification issued under section 2(s)(ii), namely SRO 566(I)/2005. Order, paragraphs 5.

This separates two questions that can easily become confused: whether an importer has complied with import requirements, and whether the particular goods satisfy the statutory classification relied on to justify a confiscation consequence. The Department still had to establish the latter foundation. Order, paragraphs 5–7.

The consequence for vehicle confiscation

Having found the goods outside SRO 566(I)/2005’s categories, the Court held that the prohibition in the proviso to SRO 499(I)/2009, dated 13 June 2009, was not attracted on that basis. Confiscation on that ground required goods falling within the notification and satisfying the relevant requirements of section 2(s)(ii). Order, paragraphs 7.

The Supreme Court left the High Court judgments undisturbed. Its operative order refused leave and dismissed the petitions; it did not convert them into appeals or announce a general entitlement to redeem every confiscated vehicle. Order, paragraphs 8.

What lawyers and transporters should check

The practical lesson is to begin with the exact goods, the statutory limb invoked and the notification entry relied on. A general reference to foreign origin or import restrictions cannot replace the classification analysis undertaken in this order. Order, paragraphs 3–7.

For another dispute, compare the goods and the applicable notification wording carefully. Identify separately any alleged declaration irregularity, import-policy breach, duties and taxes, goods redemption and vehicle confiscation. This order resolved the notification issue before it; its reasoning does not establish that every other legal requirement has been satisfied. Order, paragraphs 2 and 5–8.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Supreme Court decide about almonds and cashew nuts?

It held that almonds without shell and cashew nuts did not fall within the categories in SRO 566(I)/2005 and therefore did not satisfy the relevant smuggling definition under section 2(s)(ii) on that basis. Order, paragraphs 7.

Did the Court declare that these goods can be imported without restrictions?

No. It expressly recognised import-policy restrictions and compliance requirements, while distinguishing them from the classification issue under the customs notification. Order, paragraphs 5.

Was release of the goods free of duties and fines?

No. The Tribunal’s order allowed release against leviable duties and taxes and a 20 per cent redemption fine on the goods’ customs value. The Supreme Court declined to interfere. Order, paragraphs 2 and 8.

Does this decision prevent confiscation of every vehicle carrying nuts?

No. The decision addresses the two specified goods and the notification-based ground argued in these petitions. Its conclusion does not remove other applicable statutory requirements or decide the classification of every kind of nut. Order, paragraphs 7.

What is the short case reference?

Collector of Customs v. Abdul Aziz and connected cases, C.Ps. 283-Q–285-Q/2025 and 117-Q–119-Q/2025, Supreme Court of Pakistan, 8 October 2026. Order, pages 1–2 and 5.