1990 CLC 812 (PLP)

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑‑High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal in Constitutional jurisdiction. Khalid Jamil and S.H. Rim, for Petitioner. Muhammad Akram Zuberi for Respondents. Date of heraing: 8th June, 1989. AJMAL MIAN, CJ.‑‑This petition is directed against the orders dated nil, dated 25‑6‑1984 and dated 25‑3‑1985 passed by respondents Nos.3, 2 and 1 respectively. Brief facts leading to the filing of above petition are that the petitioner imported `Ball‑point pens and Refills IGM No.1293/6‑6‑83, Index No.6‑6‑1983, Index No.82/7‑6‑83 per `Silver Star'. The petitioner filed Bill of Entry for the release of the above consignment. The declared value was not accepted by the Customs Department. The petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.71,806 as the amount of difference in the customs duty etc. on account of difference in the prices. The petitioner contested the above demand before respondent No.3, who by his impugned order bearing No.VIB/153/83 dated nil reduced the above amount to Rs.27,525 after comparing to market price of the Ball‑points of the same country of origin namely, Itally and after allowing deduction of 15% on account of increase in the price because of the increase in the rate of customs duty and 2% on account of at source deduction of income‑tax. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent No.2 by his impugned order dated 25‑6‑1984. After that the petitioner tiled revision, which was dismissed by respondent No.1 by the aforesaid impugned order dated 25‑3‑1985. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.

2. In support of the above petition Mr. Khalid Javed, learned counsel holding brief for Mr. S.H. Rizvi, Advocate for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the respondents had compared the price of the ball‑point pens of different brands than that of the petitioner and secondly that the respondents ignored that the other importer of the same brand of the `ball‑points' namely M/s. Gift I‑louse were assessed at the same price which was declared by the petitioner. We enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the date of the import of the consignment by M/s. Gift House, but he was unable to give the same and stated that it was prior to the petitioner's consignment.

3. Be that as it may, we have gone through the orders of respondents Nos.3, 2 and 1 and find that they have applied their mind to the facts of the case properly. The comparison of the price of the petitioner's ball‑points with the A prices of the ball‑points of the other brand, both having the same country of origin, in our view, does not violate any principle of law. The original demand, as pointed out hereinabove, was for a sum of Rs.71,806 which was reduced to Rs.27,

525. We cannot sit as a Court of appeal in a writ petition for the purpose of assessing the value of ball‑ points in question. The petition has no merits and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs: M.Y.H./S‑479/K Petition dismissed.