Messrs SHAHEEN TRADING CORPORATION VS DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT GROUP-III), 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1964 (2004)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

---Ss. 32 & 81---Warehousing of goods provisionally on basis of declared value pending ascertainment of value at the time of ex bonding---Final assessment of duty---Blocking entry in computer restraining importer from paying duty and taxes already assessed---Validity---Such action was, illegal---Revenue however, would be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, of possessing sufficient material to justify proceedings under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969---Principle illustrated.

Messrs Zeb Traders through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan 2004 PTD 369 rel.

Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.

Khawar Ikram Bhatti for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25^th October, 2004.

JUDGMENT

In this Constitutional petition following prayer has been made:--

"Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be gracious enough to declare blocking entry in computer which tantamount detention of goods and refusal release of goods after the same were examined and assessed under section 80(1) of Customs Act, 1969 on final basis and all subsequent acts and actions on the part of respondents Nos.1 and 2, illegal, void, unjust, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

It is further prayed that by accepting this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be further kind enough to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to release the consignments on payment of duties and taxes A as assessed by respondent No.1 without any further undue delay."

2. The petitioner imported three consignment of goods and filed into-bond bill of entries on 24-6-2004 and 15-7-2004 seeking warehousing of the goods. The consignments were accordingly allowed by the warehoused provisionally on the declared value pending ascertainment of the value at the time of ex-bonding. Respondent No. 1 Deputy Collector of Customs Dry Port, Lahore, through his letter, dated 5-5-2004 sought assistance of his counterpart at Karachi. However, it was replied that no evidence of factual import of the stores imported by the petitioner was available. Respondent No.1 was therefore advised to finalize the assessment at their own level though two bills of entry and invoices of identical description by a supplier were forwarded, which were earlier cleared from Port Qasim by the Appraisement Collector, Karachi. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, dated 21-8-2004 from Controller of Customs Valuation Karachi, respondent No.1 on 25-8-2004 assessed the consignments giving his own valuation. However, on the very next day of the completion of the assessment allegedly it transpired that respondent No.2, Deputy Collector of Customs (AIB), Customs House, Lahore, had blocked the entry in computer and therefore, the petitioner was restrained from paying duty and taxes as earlier assessed by respondent No.1. That action on the part of respondent No.2 is challenged on various grounds with the aforesaid prayer.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I am persuaded to allow the prayer as made. Although the respondent/Revenue has disputed the assessment of the duty of the consignments imported by the petitioner yet that assertion is patently against record. An assessment note, dated 25-8-2004 on the reverse of ex-bonding bill of entry supports the claim of the petitioner. For the Revenue a novel statement has been made before the Court that the petitioner had managed the said advice by the Evaluation Collectorate, Karachi. It is however, not disputed that no action has so far been taken either against the officer sending the advice or respondent No.1, who framed assessment/evaluated the goods on the basis thereupon. In absence of any such action against the functionaries of the Revenue it cannot be heard in complaint against them.

4. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on a" recent judgment of the Karachi High Court in re: Messrs Zeb Traders through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan (2004 PTD 369) is pertinent and relevant. In an identical situation their Lordships observed that if the goods imported were appraised and assessed to customs duties and taxes which were duly deposited, the Customs Authorities were not entitled to retain them although they were at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with the law if they had adequate material for initiation of proceedings under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969.

5. Being in respectful agreement with the ratio settled in' the aforesaid judgment, I will allow this petition and c4irect the Revenue/ authorities to immediately clear/release the goods on payment of duty and taxes already assessed. However, it goes without saying that per-ratio of the said judgment the Revenue Authorities will have the jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 including section 32 thereof if they are in possession of sufficient material to justify such proceedings.

6. The petition is allowed in the above terms.

S.A.K./S-371/LPetition accepted.