1998 PLP 674 (CLC)

'I have examined the record of the case and taken into consideration the written and verbal arguments of the learned defence counsel. During the stock taking conducted on 17‑3‑1997 it was found that the goods had been removed without payment of customs duty and taxes. Only an amount of Rs.10,61,755 was paid on 13‑5‑1997 i.e., almost after two months of the detection of the case. The contention of the respondents that they had been removing the goods without payment of duty, in connivance with the customs staff does not absolve them of their wrong doings and liabilities. The case is fully established against the respondents. The respondents are directed to immediately deposit the balance amount of customs duty and taxes amounting to Rs.18,78,150 into Government treasury. In addition, a penalty of Rs.20,00,000 (rupees twenty lacs) only is also imposed on the party for violation of sections 97, 104, 106 and 116 of the Customs Act, 1969. This order consists of five pages and each page duly bears my initial and office stamp, "

4. The petitioner accordingly challenged the abovementioned order before the Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Islamabad (Bench Islamabad) on 2‑9‑1997. The petitioner's appeal was admitted and was adjourned to 28‑10‑1997 for hearing.

5. The petitioner, in the meantime, without waiting for the final verdict of the said Tribunal has filed this Constitutional petition and challenged the order of the Collector, dated 9‑7‑1997, before us.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner heard. We have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

7. It may be stated at the very, outset that we have not been able to understand as to why the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition. He should have waited for the verdict of the Appellate Tribunal, duly constituted, under the law, and competent to decide the appeal.

8. We may observe here that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies, before embarking on writ jurisdiction, is well‑settled and compliance with this rule is, therefore, necessary not only to allow/permit the statutory functionaries to perform the duties, assigned to them, but is also, essential for avoiding over‑congestion of frivolous cases/petitions in the High Court.

9. At the moment, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not come to us with clean hands and since there is serious doubt about his bona fides in filing this petition, therefore, we decline to exercise the Constitutional jurisdiction, discretionary in nature, in his favour and put a stamp of belief to his belief that his appeal would be kept in cold storage or that a decision adverse to him would be made.

10. The petitioner may, if so advised, invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as and when he has exhausted the already available remedy to him i.e., after the matter pending disposal in the Appellate Tribunal is finally decided.

11. This petition has no substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith Civil Miscellaneous. A.A./2233/P Petition dismissed.