1994 PLP 468 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑First Sched, PTC 40‑09‑D & 40.09‑B‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Importers (respondents) having imported rubber air hose pipes were assessed customs duty under P.T.C. 40.09‑D‑‑‑Importers paying duty but asking for refund on ground that their goods were liable under PTC 40.09‑B‑‑ High Court in Constitutional petition accepting importers' claim directing Authority to refund the requisite amount‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the validity of such direction. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑First Sched., P.T.C. 40.09‑D & 40.09‑B‑‑‑Petitioners could not point out any lacuna in the reasoning of High Court in coming to the finding that that rubber air hose pipes were covered under PTC 40.09‑B and not under PTC 40.09‑D for purposes of customs duty‑‑‑Judgment of High Court being in consonance with law was maintained in circumstances. Ch. Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Deputy Attorney‑General instructed by Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants (in all Appeals). Raja M. Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in all Appeals). Date of hearing: 20th January, 1991. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑This order will dispose of appeals by leave bearing Nos.231, 232 and 233 of 1989 as these challenge the same order of the Lahore High Court recorded in Writ Petition No.4727 of 1986.

2. Relevant facts are that the respondents under the Import License for parts and accessories of automotive vehicles imported Rubber Air Hoses pipe. They were assessed Customs Duty under PTC heading 40.09‑D. They paid the duty but asked for refund on the ground that their goods were liable under heading 40.09‑B. Having had no relief, they filed Constitutional petitions in the Lahore High Court which have been allowed by a learned Judge on 20‑3‑1988 on the finding that "the air hose pipes produced by the Appraiser completely match with the rubber air hose pipe fitted to the foot pump. It is clear that rubber air hose pipe imported by the petitioner is fitted to motor car/motor cycle foot pumps. It cannot be denied that a motor car/motor‑cycle foot pump is the accessory of an automotive vehicle. Since leave had been granted to other importers who had not been granted relief, the appellants were also granted leave.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that air hose pipes were not for accessory of automotive vehicles. However, he has not been able to point out any lacuna in the reasoning of the learned Judge of the High Court in coming to the finding to the contrary. There is no merit in these appeals, therefore, these are dismissed without any order as to costs. A.A./C‑132/S Appeals dismissed.