INTERNATIONAL BRANDS (PVT.) LTD. through General Manager Finance & Company Secretary VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2226 (2005)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)------

----S.195-C---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Application of petitioner under S.195-C of the Customs Act, 1969 for an' alternate resolution of dispute had been turned down on the ground that transaction in question was past and closed one---Validity---Provision of S.195-C Customs Act, 1969 provided no limitation---Section195-C, however, could not be interpreted to mean that an application thereunder could be filed regardless of the time that might be lapsed---Said provision could not be applied to a past and closed transaction---Whether present case was a case of past and closed transaction, was an open question and allegedly remedy of revision was available which had not become time-barred on the date application under S.195-C was filed and that the goods had not been auctioned---Such aspects merited consideration---Impugned order did not disclose that such aspects of the matter had been taken into consideration or decided by the Authority---Said order was rather sketchy and terse, in the circumstances and in the interest of justice the impugned order was not sustainable---Order in question was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded to .the Authority to decide the application afresh after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration the legal aspects raised before the High Court or otherwise through the present Constitutional petition.

Khalid Qureshi and 5 others v. United Bank Limited I. I. Chundrigar Road Karachi 2001 SCMR 103 ref.

Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Aziz A. Sheikh for Petitioner.

Malik Waqar Waseem, Dy. A.-G. on Court's call.

Sarfraz Ahmed Cheema for the Customs Department.

ORDER

This writ petition is directed against inter alia the order, dated 14-2-2005 passed by respondent No.2 declining to entertain the application filed by the petitioner under section 195-C of the Customs Act, 1969.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the respondents apparently seized various goods purported to belong to the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was responded to and eventually vide order in original, dated 3-6-2004 the goods were directed to be confiscated. The petitioner filed an application under section 195-C of the Customs Act, 1969 on 21-12-2004 before respondent No.2 seeking that a committee be appointed in terms of said provision and the matter referred thereunder for an alternative resolution of the dispute. The said application was declined vide the impugned order, dated 14-2-2005.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with petition has also been perused.

4. The application under section 195-C of the Customs Act, 1969, filed by the petitioner for alternate dispute resolution has been turned down on the ground that there is a past and closed transaction.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has seriously defended the impugned order in original, dated 6-3-2004 was appealable and no appeal was filed by the petitioner. And prior to the filing of the application under section 195-C of the Customs Act, 1969, the appeal provided by law under section 194-C of the Act ibid had become time-barred hence it was past and closed transaction, therefore, the application has been rightly declined by respondent No. 2. Learned Deputy Attorney-General present on Court call in this behalf has relied upon the judgment reported as 2001 SCMR 103 (Khalid Qureshi and 5 others v. United Bank Limited I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the goods though were confiscated and have yet not been auctioned, therefore, it was not a past and closed transaction. Even otherwise, the order in original was subject to revision under section 195-C of the Customs Act, 1969, and the limitation provided, therefore, had not lapsed hence, the impugned order is illegal. Furthermore, it was contended that no period of limitation has been provided under section 195-C of the Customs Act, 1969 for seeking an alternate dispute resolution.

7. A perusal of section 195-C of the Customs Act, 1969 reveals that no limitation has been provided. Be that as it may, the said provision of law cannot be interpreted to mean that an application thereunder can be filed regardless of the time that may be lapsed. Obviously, it could not be applied to past and closed transaction. Further whether in the circumstances of the case, it was a past and closed transaction, it is an open question. And allegedly remedy of revision was available which had not become time-barred on the date of application under section 195-C .of the Customs Act, 1969 was filed before respondent A No.2 and that goods have not been auctioned merit consideration. The order, dated 14-2-2005 does not disclose that this aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration or decided by respondent No.2 impugned order is rather sketchy and terse, in the circumstances and in the interest of justice the impugned order, dated 14-2-2005 is not sustainable. In the interest of justice the impugned order, dated 14-2-2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to decide the application afresh after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration the legal aspects raised before this Court or otherwise through this writ petition by the petitioner. The matter shall be decided by respondent No.2 expeditiously, if possible, within a period of two weeks from the receipt of this order.

This Constitution petition is accepted in the above terms.

M.B.A./I-101/LPetition accepted.