Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss.18, 30 & 31-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-.

Constitutional petition---Imposition of regulatory duty on goods imported during currency of exemption notification---Validity---Government power to impose regulatory duty---Effect of Al-Samrez case SCMR 1917) stood nullified after insertion of S. 31-A in ms Act, 1969---All importers were liable to pay customs duty at ate of duty applicable to any goods on the date on which Bill of wasmanifested---High Court dismissed Constitutional petition.

Al-Samrez's case 1986 SCMR 1917 and Collector of Customs v Spinning Ltd. .1999 SCMR 412 rel.

Amer Raza Naqvi for Petitioner.

S. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th February, 2003.

JUDGMENT

S. AHMED SARWANA, J.--The, brief facts relating to this p ion are that the Federal Government, in order to promote the export of indigenous products from the country, allowed certain reliefs and incentives to the public at large by granting exemptions from the payment of customs duty and sales tax chargeable on the import of certain raw materials and components specified in SRO 671(1)-/94 dated 3rd July, 1994. The petitioner relying upon the aforesaid notification opened Letters of Credit for import of raw materials for manufacture of electric cables and other components to be supplied against international tenders. It is alleged that the Letters of Credit were opened before 29-10-1995 and the goods had already arrived in Pakistan by that date. Meanwhile, Central Board of Revenue by notification dated 29-10-1995 levied regulatory duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner filed Bills of Entry claiming exemption under SRO No.671(1)/94 but respondent No.3, Collector of Customs (Appraisement) refused to extend the benefit of the exemption and demanded the regulatory duty on the imported goods. Consequently, petitioner filed the present petition to challenge the levy of the regulatory duty on the raw materials imported vide various LCs established between 21-2-1995 to 23-11-1995.

2. Mr. Anter Raza Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the raw material and the components imported by the Petitioner gave been exempted from the payment of customs duty and. sale4 Tax vide S. R: O No. 671(1)/94 and that the regulatory duty at the rate of 5 % ad valorem imposed under section 18 of. the Custom4 Act is without lawful authority and a nullity in the eye of law. He added that the facility of exemption from duty in respect of the goods to be supplied against international tenders has always been available and, as such, C.B.R: had no authority to impose regulatory duty on the raw material in question. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners had entered into contracts of supply before the imposition of regulatory duty and, as such, a vested right had come into existence which could not be taken away in view of the judgment of the - Supreme Court in Al-Samrez case 1986 SCMR 1917.

3. In reply, Mr. S. Tariq Ali, learned. Federal Counsel contended that the ratio decidendi of Al-Samrez case is no longer available after amendment in the Customs Act, 1969, and that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has already held that the Government has the power and jurisdiction, to impose regulatory duty.

4. We have heard and considered the arguments of Mr. Amer Raza Naqvi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tariq Ali, learned Federal Counsel.

5. A perusal of the Court order-sheet including the orders dated 27-12-1995 and 4-1-1996 clearly show that this petition was admitted to consider the validity of the imposition of regulatory, duty which was challenged by the petitioner and several other persons who had filed similar Constitutional petitions.

6. As far as the imposition of regulatory duty is concerned, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Collector of Customs v. Ravi Spinning Ltd. 1999 SCMR 412, has upheld the power of the Government to impose regulatory duty. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner's counsel that imposition of regulatory duty is void ab initio and without lawful authority does not hold ground.

7. The learned counsel has not produced any document to show that he was denied exemption from payment of duty, if available, under SRO 671(1)/94 dated 3-7-1994. However, his contention that by imposition of regulatory duty his vested rights were affected because he had established the Letters of Credit before the imposition of the regulatory duty on 29-10-1995 is not valid. After insertion of section 31-A in the Customs Act, 1969, the effect of Al-Samrez case stands nullified and all importers are liable to pay customs duty at the rate of duty applicable to any goods on the date on which the Bill of Entry is manifested as provided by section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969.

8. In view of the above legal position, this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed.

9. The above are the reasons for the short order dated- 26-2-2003 whereby this petition was dismissed.

S.A.K./A-501/KPetition dismissed.