(On appeal from judgment, dated 3‑11-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 19898 of 1999).

Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss.18 & 195‑B‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑ Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑‑Adequate remedy, non‑availing of‑‑‑Petitioner alleged that the assessment of customs duty made by the Authorities was improper‑‑‑Without availing the, remedy of appeal/revision before Customs Authorities, the petitioner assailed the assessment order before High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the assessment order made by the Authorities‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Resort to extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court by the petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal before the Authorities concerned was not in order and the High Court was right in observing that no special reason existed for coming to the rescue of the petitioner who had failed to resort to the remedies of appeal/revision etc. before Customs Department in relation to the assessment‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.

Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 28th June; 2001.

JUDGMENT

CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J,.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is claimed against judgment dated 3‑11‑1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 19898 of 190 declining to issue a writ/order in the nature of mandamus to respondent‑Collector of Customs not to harass the petitioner and a declaration to the effect that the demand of custom duty made from her in relation to a used Mercedes Benz 250‑D Car be declared as illegal, with the following observations:‑‑‑

"3. Learned legal advisor of the respondents submits that petitioner gave an undertaking to the Customs Authority that she will pay the duty till 22‑10‑1969 but despite the under taking, she failed to pay duties/tax assessed on the imported items and in these circumstances, the goods were auctioned on 29‑10‑1999.

4. It is thus obvious that the assessment was made by the Assistant Collector, petitioner undertook to, pay the Customs Duty and other taxes, the payment was not made by the petitioner, which resulted in the auction of the goods. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of assessment, she could have challenged the order in appeal before the forum in the hierarchy of jurisdiction. In presence of available remedy, petitioner could not possibly invoke extraordinary, jurisdiction of this Court.

5. This petition is, therefore, disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may avail her remedy of appeal before the authorities concerned in accordance with law."

2. We have heard Malik Allah Yar Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition and Mr. A. Karim Malik, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the respondents in terms of order, dated 28‑12‑1999.

3. When the attention of Mr. Khan was drawn to the fact that the learned Judge in Chambers had duly noticed his client's undertaking to the Customs Authorities to pay duties/tax assessed on the imported item till 22‑10‑1999 but she failed to do so which necessitated the auction of the goods on 29‑10‑1999 i.e. about a month earlier than the hearing of the case in the High Court without resorting to the appropriate remedies within the hierarchy of respondent‑Authorities, he had nothing to urge to the contrary.

4. We find that resort to extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court by the petitioner, without availing her remedy of appeal before the Authorities concerned, was not in order ‑and the learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that no special reason existed for coming to the rescue of the petitioner who had failed to resort to the remedies of appeal/revision etc. before the Customs Department in relation to the impugned assessment.

5. Not finding any force in the above petition, the same dismissed and leave refused.

Q.M.H./W‑31/S Petition dismissed.