SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J:---This consolidated order of ours, shall dispose of the captioned custom references, preferred by the applicant, seeking annulment of judgment of even dates i.e., 03.04.2025, 11.04.2025, 18.04.2025, 23.04.2025, 25.04.2025 and 27.04.2025 ("impugned judgments") passed in Customs Appeals Nos.Q-203/2025, Q-341/2025, Q-267/2025, Q-406/2025, Q-402/2025, Q-340/2025, Q-400/2025, Q-894/2024, Q-99/2025, Q401/2025 and Q-166/2025 authored by Customs Appellate Tribunal, Quetta Bench at Karachi ("Appellate Tribunal"), whereby the order in-original Nos.12483/2024, 13993/2025, 14522/2024, 13817/2024, 12688/2024, 13633/2024, 12801/2024, 10791/2024, 12091/2024, 12688/2024 and 12094/2024 passed by the Collector and Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Quetta, Balochistan were modified and the vehicles were directed to be handed over to their lawful owners, subject to payment of 20% and 40% redemption of fine respectively.
2.    Since identical question of facts and law are involved in the lis in hand, therefore, the captioned references are being decided through this consolidated order.
3.    Chronological facts of the captioned references follow hereunder;
Facts in Custom Reference No.62 of 2025.
       Concisely stated, facts of the case are on 22.07.2024, staff of Frontier Corps ("FC"), 102-Wing Noshki Militia handed over foreign origin goods i.e., Betel Nuts, Monsodium Glutamate (Chinese Salt), Cigarettes loaded on a Hino Truck bearing Registration No.NAC-807 to the staff of Field Enforcement Unit ("FEU") Customs, who after following due process, took into possession the said smuggled goods and vehicle and formally seized the same under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 ("Act of 1969") for violating the provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 ("Act of 1950"), sections 2(s) 15, 16 of the Act of 1969 further read SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 and SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005, punishable under clause (89) of sections 156(I) and 157 of the Act of 1969, following a show-cause notice.
       The Collector (Adjudication), Customs Quetta, Balochistan confiscated the seized goods and vehicle vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the vehicle, subject to payment of 20% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.63 of 2025.
       Per applicant, on 21.11.2024, the staff of FC-123 Wing Rifles handed over a Truck bearing Registration No.TKX-474 loaded with Iranian Origin Diesel to the staff FEU Lakpass, which was taken into possession and seized under section 168 Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 16 of the Act of 1969, punishable under clause (89) of sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 and section 3 of the Act of 1950, following a show-cause notice.
       After hearing the parties, the Collector (Adjudication), Quetta, Balochistan confiscated the Iranian Diesel and vehicle vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the vehicle, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.64 of 2025.
       Briefly stated, on 07.12.2024 at about 03:00 am on a tip off, FEU, Surab intercepted a Bus bearing Registration No.BSA-035, whereupon its search, found skimmed milk powder, Polyethylene Compound, Rani Juice, Engine Oil (Supper Homa), New Tamil, Plastic Sacks and Plastic Shopper Parcels, which were formally seized under section 168 Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 15, 16 of the Act of 1969, punishable under clause (89) of sections 156(1) and 157 (2) of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 and section 3(1) of the Act of 1950, following a show-cause notice.
       The Collector (Adjudication), Quetta, Balochistan, after hearing the parties confiscated the smuggled goods with the option of redemption of 20% fine on some items being locally purchased, however the vehicle was confiscated vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the Bus bearing Registration No.BSA-035, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine and verification.
Facts in Custom Reference No.65 of 2025.
       The facts of the case are that on 15.11.2024, FEU Rakhni intercepted a Hino Truck bearing Registration No.GLT-6871 loaded with Chinese Salt and Cigarettes, which were formally seized for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 16 of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 further read with section 3(1) of the Act of 1950, punishable under clause (8), (89) of sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act of 1969, following a show-cause notice.
       After hearing the parties, the Collector (Adjudication), Quetta, Balochistan confiscated the smuggled items and vehicle vide order-in-Original mentioned hereinabove, which order was challenged in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the Hino Truck bearing Registration No.GLT-6871, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.66 of 2025.
       Relevant facts of the case are that on 27.11.2024, the staff of FC 74-Wing intercepted vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TKV-389 and TKN-487 loaded with foreign origin goods, which were handed over to the Mobile Squad of Customs and the same were seized under section 168 of the Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 16 of the Act of 1969, punishable under clause (89) of section 156(1) of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 further read with subsection (1) of section 3 the Act of 1950, following a show-cause notice.
       The Collector (Adjudication), Quetta, Balochistan, after hearing the parties confiscated the smuggled goods with the option of redemption of 20% fine on some items being locally purchased, however the vehicles were confiscated vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the Truck bearing Registration No.TKN-487, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine and verification.
Facts in Custom Reference No.67 of 2025.
       Condensed, but relevant facts of the case in hand are that the staff of FEU Ziarat Cross on 07.11.2024, on a tip off intercepted a Van bearing Registration No.LEB-771 loaded smuggled Cigarettes, which was seized for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 15, 16 of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 further read with section 3(1) of the Act of 1950, punishable under clauses (8), (89) of sections 156(I) and 157 (2) of the Act of 1969, following a show-cause notice.
       After hearing the parties, the Collector (Adjudication), Quetta Balochistan confiscated the goods and vehicle vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the vehicle, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.68 of 2025.
       Briefly stated, on 20.11.2024, the staff of FEU, Surab on a tip off intercepted a Hino Truck bearing Registration Nos.NAB-720, which was found loaded foreign origin copper alloy ingots and copper scrap, thus the same were seized under section 168 Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 15, 16 of the Act of 1969 punishable under clause (89) of sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 further read with section 3(1) of the Act of 1950, following a show-cause notice.
       The Collector (Adjudication), Quetta, Balochistan, after hearing the parties confiscated the smuggled goods with the option of redemption of 20% fine on some items being locally purchased, however the vehicle was confiscated vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the Hino Truck bearing Registration No.NAB-720, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.69 of 2025.
       Precisely stated, on 16.07.2024 on a tip off, the staff of FEU Manikhawa intercepted a Hino Mazda bearing Registration Nos.SEA-144 loaded with Betel Nuts, which were seized under section 168 Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 15, 16 of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 further read with section 3(1) of the Act of 1950, punishable under clause (89) of sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act of 1969, following a show-cause notice.
       After hearing the parties, the Collector (Adjudication), Quetta Balochistan confiscated the goods and vehicle vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the vehicle, subject to payment of 20% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.70 of 2025.
       Facts of the case are that on 22.07.2024 at about 02:00 am, the staff FC 102-Wing Noshki Militia handed over foreign origin assorted cloth and tyres along with Mazda Truck bearing Registration Nos.JV-6935 to the staff of FEU, Noshki, which were taken into possession and the same were seized under section 168 Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of section 3(1) of the Act of 1950, sections 2(s), 15, 16 of the Act of 1969 further read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009, punishable under clause (89) of sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act of 1969, following a show-cause notice.
       The Collector (Adjudication), Quetta Balochistan, after hearing the parties, confiscated the goods and vehicle vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the vehicle, subject to payment of 20% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.71 of 2025.
Tersely, facts of the case are that on 27.11.2024, the staff FC 74 Wing handed over Truck bearing Registrations Nos.TKV-389 and TKN-487 loaded smuggled goods to the Mobile Squad of Customs, Quetta and the same were seized under section 168 of the Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 16 of the Act of 1969, punishable under clause (89) of section 156(I) of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 further read with subsection (1) of section 3 the Act of 1950, following a show-cause notice
       After hearing the parties, the Collector (Adjudication) Quetta, Balochistan confiscated the smuggled goods with the option of redemption of 20% fine on some items being locally purchased, however, the vehicles were confiscated vide order-in-original mentioned hereinabove, which order was impugned in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released Truck bearing Registration No.TKV-389, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine.
Facts in Custom Reference No.73 of 2025.
       Relevant facts of the case are that in pursuance of information on 25.09.2024, the FEU Darakshan-Bolan intercepted a Truck bearing Registration No.TKT-208, which was found loaded with foreign origin Betel Nuts, thus the same were seized under section 168 of the Act of 1969 for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 15, 16 of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009, further read with section 3(1) of the Act of 1950 punishable under clause (89) of sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act of 1969, following a show-cause notice.
       The Additional Collector (Adjudication) Quetta, Balochistan vide order-in-original confiscated the goods and vehicle, which order was assailed in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal vide impugned judgment modified the order-in-original and released the Truck bearing Registration No.TKT-208, subject to payment of 40% of redemption fine and verification.
4.    Heard. Record perused with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the applicant. Admittedly, the vehicles in question were confiscated by the Filed Enforcement Units of Customs from frequent routes across Balochistan, whereon local as well as interprovincial vehicles ply. Allegedly, the vehicles in question were confiscated along with foreign origin goods for violating the provisions of sections 2(s), 15 and 16 of the Act of 1969 punishable under clauses (8) and (89) of sections 156(1) and 157(2) of the Act of 1969 read with SRO 566(I)/2005 dated 06.06.2005 and SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 further read with section 3(1) of the Act of 1950.
       Bare perusal of SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009 as amended still and anon demonstrates that no option shall be given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of the following goods or classes of goods namely;
"(a)  smuggled goods falling under clause (s) of section 2 of Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969);
(b)   lawfully registered conveyance including packages and containers found carrying smuggled goods in false cavities or being used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offending goods under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969); or
(ba) lawfully registered conveyance including packages and containers, other than in clause (b), if seized and found carrying smuggled goods;".]
(c)   goods imported in violation of section 15 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969);
(d)   banned items, goods of Israeli origin and goods of Indian origin other than those importable from India in accordance with the Import Policy Order, for the time being in force; or
(e)   job lot and stock lot goods;
(f)   restricted and other items which are subject to procedural requirements under Import Policy Order, for the time being in force unless such condition and procedural requirements are fulfilled; or
(g)   commodities which are not importable in used or second-hand condition under the Import Policy Order, for the time being in force:"
5.    Clause (b) of SRO ibid clearly demonstrates that any vehicle or conveyance, which is exclusively or wholly meant for transportation of offending goods or the owner of the vehicle has created false cavities in the said vehicle for the purpose of smuggling, the vehicle is liable to confiscation and the owner would have no option to get the vehicle released against the redemption fine. However, in order to attract the bar contained in clause (b) of the SRO ibid, the applicant has to demonstrate and establish that the confiscated goods were exclusively and wholly used for transportation of offending goods hidden inside the false cavities in the vehicles in question. The order-in-originals drawn by Collector and Additional Collector (Adjudication) Customs House, Quetta and Gaddani, Balochistan respectively are absolutely silent in this regard, which is the main ingredient of SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009. Moreso, the applicant has also failed to bring on record any forensic lab report in order to establish that the goods loaded in the vehicles in question were foreign origin. The customs authorities have also not registered any FIR for the offences punishable under section 156 of the Act of 1969 against the respondents in order to try for the felony committed by them, which squares out the vehicles in question from the category of offending offences.
6.    Section 196 of the of Act of 1969 relates to reference to the High Court in which any person or collector aggrieved of an order passed under section 194-A of the Act, 1969 may prefer a reference upon a question of law emanating of such an order. Irrefutably, the Appellate Tribunal is the ultimate Court to determine the factual controversies, which cannot be interfered with by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 196 of the Act of 1969 unless question of law arises or the facts are found to be contra to the record. The precise importance of the remedy of reference provided under section 196 is to resolve and adjudicate only the question of law, stemming from the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, but not otherwise.
       The Supreme Court in the case of "Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, E&ST (Adjudication-II)" (2006 SCMR 425) held that a question of law does not require investigation of facts and thus, a question involving factual inquiry into facts or to which answer cannot be given without going into fact is not a question of law.
       Similarly, in the case of "Collector of Customs Karachi v. Messrs Haji Ismail Co. (2015 SCMR 1383), the apex court held that the Appellate Tribunal is the final forum meant for determining factual aspect. The High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under section 196 of the Act of 1969 is not free to embark upon an unfettered inquiry into factual aspects, which has been properly considered and decided by the Appellate Tribunal.
7.    In view of the above, we are of the cautious opinion that the matter was rightly decided by the Appellate Tribunal, which is the last facts finding forum, which is unamenable, whereas no question of law is involved in the instant references, persuading us to meddle with the impugned judgments of the Appellate Tribunal of Customs, which are otherwise based upon proper appreciation of relevant facts and interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 1969, suffering from no error of law and fact, thus we are reluctant to exercise jurisdiction under Section 196 of the Custom Act of 1969.
8.    Corollary, the captioned references being bereft of merits are dismissed in limine.
 Applications dismissed.