1987 PLP 234 (MLD)

(a) Rolled but not further worked, of a thickness of more than 4.75 mm; (b) Rolled but not further worked, of a thickness of 3 mm or more but not more than 4.75 mm; (c) Rolled but not further worked, of a thickness of less than 3 mm; (d) Tinned; (e) Other. The rate of the duties have been mentioned in the respective columns. The learned counsel has referred to the Inspection Note of Soviet Expert of Pakistan Steel Mills which reads as under: "The material is Steel Slabs in its present shape, haring the following characteristics:- (1) These are roughly rolled with round edges,' fishtails, way surface and Rolling marks, as per the enclosed Drawing No. SIL/2. (2) The dimensions of the Slabs are uneven having width 1100-1180 mm, length 6000-6500 mm and thickness 60-63 mm. In order to make these Slabs into 60 mm Checker plates, the supplier is required to make arrangements to fabricate these as per Inspection Report, dated 20-12-1981 arid Drawing according to tender. He has also referred to a telex of the supplier wherein it has been certified that these slabs fall under tariff No.73.07 and not 73.13 which was wrongly mentioned in our invoice. The certificate of the Soviet Expert does not indicate that the goods are not sheets but as the petitioner was required to supply goods in accordance with their tender, therefore, the defects were pointed out by the experts. As regards the telex of the supplier, it may be pointed out that the petitioner had himself produced the invoice alongwith the goods and it clearly shows Tariff No.73.13.190. This document has been produced by the learned Deputy Attorney-General. The petitioner has not filed this document alongwith this petition though he has admitted that this was the invoice issued by the supplier. Thus this document itself destroys the case of the petitioner. Subsequent, document of the supplier may be a procured one. It is also relevant to refer to the report submitted by Dr. Muhammad Nasim, Operational Head, Quality Control Department of Pakistan Steel Mills in which it has been stated that the first impression after looking on these goods was that they were checkered plates having dimensions; Width 1080--1160 mm Thickness 60--63 mm Length 6000--6500 mm The conclusion which was drawn by the expert is that in the light of above analysis, it is concluded that the flat-rolled products with semi-finished edges and checkered net work on one side lying in the warehouse are checkered plates with irregular edges.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondents have misread the evidence but the evidence has been discussed by the respondents and we have referred to such evidence in the earlier part of the judgment. It cannot be said that the finding of the Tribunals below is based on no evidence. At the most it can be urged that the conclusion was not correct but simply because another view was possible that is no ground for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner was entitled to the concessional rate of duty and it was not right for the customs authorities to revoke the authority mentioned in the S.R.O. referred to above. The respondents have held that the said S.R.O. is not applicable to the goods of the petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to P L D 1959 Lah.

955. In which it has been held that in the absence of any definition of the word 'manufacture' this was covered by the dictionary meaning. The dictionary meaning of manufacture is invent and fabricate. In fact the petitioner's main case rests on the appreciation of the evidence taken by the respondents to determine the description of the goods. Evidence has been recorded by the respondents and they have come to a conclusion. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has stated that if the goods are raw material then reduced duty is leviable but if some process has taken place then the goods would be dutiable under Tariff 73.13 which has been done in the present case. The official respondents have the jurisdiction in the matter. They have assessed the evidence and in fact in order to come to a conclusion the Respondent No.2 has also recorded the evidence. Under Article 199 of the Constitution this Court would not enter into the realm of facts because it is the function of he Tribunals below. The Court would interfere only in cases where the impugned orders are based on no evidence or the Tribunals blow had no jurisdiction in the matter. The conclusion may be wrong but this is no ground for interference by this Court. In the present case the respondents have appreciated the evidence and we will not sit over the judgment of the respondents merely because some other view is possible. The petition has no force and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The petition was dismissed by a short order, dated 15-10-1985. The above are the reasons which we have recorded in support of such order. H . B . T . / S-13 / K Petition dismissed.