P L D 1989 Karachi 601 (PLP)

QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J.‑‑At the conclusion of hearing of this petition, we had by a short order, dated 7‑6‑1989, dismissed it with no order as to costs, and now we proceed to record reasons for the same.

2. The petitioners imported semi‑refined white Paraffin Wax M.P. 54/56‑C, oil contents: 2% from China in November, 1981 at US Dollars 780 per metric ton, C&F Karachi. At the time of actual import the international prices of Paraffin Wax were reduced from US Dollars 780 to 695 per metric ton, C&F Karachi. On the protest of the petitioners, the consigners refunded the amount of Rs.4,02,693.89, as excess value charged on total consignments (being difference of $ 780‑695 per metric ton). The goods arrived Karachi on 21‑11‑1981 and the duty was paid on 28‑11‑1981. The petitioners got the refund on 26‑1‑1982. The refund applications were made on 6‑2‑1982 under section 33 of the Customs Act, 1969, which were, however, rejected by respondent No.3 on 21‑12‑1982. The petitioners filed an appeal with respondent No.2 on 22‑1‑1983, but without any success. The revision application filed before respondent No.3, also met the same fate. Thereafter, the petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayers:‑ The petitioners humbly pray as below:‑ (1) That the three impugned orders (A, B & C) may kindly be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and as such may kindly be set aside. (2) That the excess customs duty and sales tax amounting to a total of Rs.3,42,959 overcharged may kindly be ordered to be refunded.

3. Section 33 of the Customs Act, 1969, speaks of refund of any customs duties or charges claimed to have been paid. or over‑paid through in advertence, error or misconstruction. A bare reading of this section would show that refund can be claimed where higher duty, than actual was due, has been charged.

4. The claim for refund was rejected on the ground that the declared value of US $ 780 M.T. was found to be the normal value at the time of filing of bills of entry. According to section 30, the normal value determined under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, is the value applicable at the time of filing of bills of entry. It is also the case of respondents that no valid or tangible documentary evidence was produced by the petitioners to substantiate their contention of normal value of the goods on the date of filing of bills of entry. There is good deal of force in both these contentions.

5. Section 29 of the Customs Act, 1969, further lays down that except as provided in section 88, no amendment of a bill of entry or bill of export, relating to goods assessed for duty on the declared value, quantity or description thereof shall be allowed after such goods have been removed from the customs area. Again the question that the petitioners succeeded in claiming the excess value from the consigners is irrelevant to the issue as the date of contract remained the same.

6. For all the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are', however, left to bear their own costs. M.B A./ H‑165/ K Petition dismissed.