1984 PLP 2032 (CLC)

This judgment primarily cites: The import licences for import of tyres were issued to the petitioner on 31st August, 1972 after amendment of the original import policy for the period 19 2‑73 by notification, dated 29th June, 1972. Therefore on the date the import licences were issued to the petitioner the original Import Policy, dated 15th May, 1972, stood amended to the extent mentioned in the notification, dated 29th June, 1972. Accordingly, in our opinion, the import of tyres permitted under the original import policy for the period 1972‑73 was subject to the limitation mentioned in the subsequent notification, dated 29th June, 1972. The fact that there was no mention of the subsequent notification, dated 29-6‑1972 on the import licences issued to the petitioner was of no significance and could not affect the operation of the said notification, We are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent notification, dated 29th June, 1972 was ultra vires of section 3 (1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950. The learned counsel for the respondents rightly pointed out that the tyres sizes which were prohibited from being imported under the Import Policy for the period 1972‑73 were specifically mentioned at Serial No. 303 of the Annexure "I"' to the policy and the subsequent notification dated 29‑6‑1972 which only provided that replacement sizes of those tyres were also prohibited for import did not suffer from any defect. We are, therefore, of the view that the notification dated 29th June, 1972 did not suffer from any defect as pointed out by the learned counsel. We, however, agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities while holding that the tyres imported by the petitioner were the replacement sizes of 7.50 x 14 acted without jurisdiction as their conclusion were neither based on any material nor no any reasoning. We have carefully considered the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 in the case and we find that the whole basis of their conclusion that the tyres imported by the petitioner were the replacement size of 7.50 x 14 is the notification, dated 29th June, 1972 and the clarification issued by Ministry of Commerce that the notification, dated 29‑6‑1972 was only an interpretation and clarification of the Import Policy and not the amendment thereof. We are unable to understand how on the basis of notification, dated 29‑6‑197 which prohibited import of replacement sizes of tyres mentioned at Seria No. 303 of Annexure "1" of the Import Policy, it could be held that tyres size 7.00 x 14 is the replacement size of 7.50 x 14. In our view whether the tyre improted by the petitioner were the replacement size of 7.50 x 14 or not could only be determined with reference to the technical details of the two sizes of tyres. No doubt, the determination of the point whether the tyres imported by the petitioner were a replacement size of 7.50 c 14 is a question of fact which normally is to be left to be determined by the authorities who are charged with the function of determination of contravention of Import and Export (Control) Act and the Customs Act and collection of customs duty thereupon but where such determination by the authorities is based on no evidence at all or is arbitrary in nature, this Court can always interfere with such conclusions of authorities especially in cases where as a result of such arbitrary determination a person would be liable to pay a higher rate of duty or would be exposed to penal consequences under the law. We looked into the counter‑affidavit and the parawise comments filed by respondents 1 to 3 in this case to find out if the respondents had disclosed the material con sidered by them while holding that tyres imported by the petitioner were the replacement size of 7.50 x 14 but we found none. We also enquired from the learned counsel for the respondents if he was in a position to place before us the material on the basis of which the respondents came to the conclusion that the tyres imported by the petitioner was the replacement size of 7.50 x 1 and for that purpose we granted him two adjournments but he was unable to place any such material before us which could support the conclusions of respondents. He, however, placed before us during arguments a cyclostyle statement alleged to have been issued by the General Tyres and Rubbe Company Limited, showing the manufacture of tyres in Pakistan, and attempted to show that the tyres imported by the petitioner was a replace ment of size 7.50 X 14, but when we asked the learned counsel to show us, either from his own file or from the record before us, that this document was ever taken consideration by any of the respondents while holding that the tyres imported by the petitioner was a replacement size, he was unable t demonstrate the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand placed before us the printed literature on manufacture of Car tyres issued by Bridgstone, and internationally known manufacturer of tyres, entitled "Data Book of Passage Car Tyres". According to the specification of different sizes of tyres given in this Booklet pages 40 and 41 the two sizes namely 7.00 x 14 and 7.50 x 14 differ from each other in several respect in technical details and, therefore, they could not possibly be treated as the replacement of one another. We quote here for the sake of convenience the technical details of the two sizes of tyres which are as follows;, (b) Constitution of Pakistan ( 1973)‑, (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (a) Imports sad Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 2032 (CLC) (MESSRS JOOSAB PEER MUHAMMAD & Co.‑Petitioner Versus THE CENTRAL BOARD of REVENUE AND 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.