1989 PLP 4549 (MLD)

SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J--The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 dated 4-11-1981, 31-3-1982 and 23-4-1983 respectively. The facts as alleged in the petition are as follows:-- The petitioner was granted import licence bearing No.A-678632 dated 13-11-1980 for import of "parts and accessories of Automotive vehicles", under Serial No.320 of the Free List of the Import Policy Order of 1980. The case of the petitioner is that against the above import licence he imported Rear view mirror. The consignment imported by the petitioner arrived at Karachi on 23-6-1981 and on the following day, namely, 24-6-1981 the petitioner submitted a bill of entry for clearance of the goods for home consumption. It is alleged that the bill of entry submitted by the petitioner was not processed and alter about 5 months objection was raised both, with regard to the valuation of the consignment as well as to the classification of the item under the relevant ITC heading. It appears, that the petitioner applied for a summary adjudication, whereupon by order dated 4-11 -1981 respondent No.1 held that the goods imported by the petitioner are not Rear view mirror but are sun mirror sheets for which the petitioner had no import licence. The petitioner was accordingly found guilty of contravention of sections 16 and 32 of Customs Act by respondent No.1 who confiscated the consignment under section 156(9) of the Customs Act but allowed its release on payment of fine equal to 2000 of the value of the goods and 50% personal penalty. The petitioner challenged the above order of respondent No.1 before respondent No.2 who reduced the fine from 200% to 100% and also reduced the personal penalty by 50%. From reading of the order of respondent No. 2, it appears that the only ground urged by the petitioner before respondent No.2 was that in identical cases the pitch of the fine and penalty was lesser and he accordingly prayed for their reduction. Respondent No.2 taking into consideration that the consignment had already incurred heavy demurrage took a lenient view and reduced the fine from 200% to 100% while he also reduced the personal penalty to 50%, Again the order of respondent No.2 a revision was filed by the petitioner before respondent No.3 and once again from the order of respondent No.3 passed in revision it is quite clear that the petitioner did not contest the redemption fine of 100% maintained by respondent No.2, and his only prayer before respondent No.3 was for waiver of the remaining amount of personal penalty on the ground that the import was made by six small groups of importers of limited means. Respondent No.3 however, did not interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2 and dismissed the revision petition. Mr. Amanullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the orders passed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 are wholly without jurisdiction as they failed to take into consideration the material before them which clearly established that the goods imported by the petitioner were Real view mirror and not mirror sheet as held by respondent No.1. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in so far as the decision of the respondent that the petitioner had under invoiced the value of the goods, is concerned, the same is based on no evidence as is apparent from the order and in any case the evidence if any, in this regard was never made available to petitioner and as such the petitioner was condemned unheard in the case. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the contentions raised by the petitioner before respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on merits were neither considered nor decided. With regard to observations of respondent No.3 in the impugned order that the petitioner had not pressed or contested the redemption fine it is urged by the learned counsel that these observations are contrary to the fact. No counter-affidavit to the petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the case and Mr. S. Hamid Hussain who appears for the respondents made a statement before us that in spite of his best efforts and several reminders no one from the office of respondents came forward to instruct him in the matter. Nevertheless, it is quite clear from the order of respondent No.3 that neither valuation of the consignment nor the imposition of fine of 100% was contested. The petitioner has not filed copy of memo of revision submitted before respondent No.3 to establish his contention that the finding given by respondent No. 2 on the appeal of petitioner was contrary to the stand taken by him. In the revisional order the respondent No.3 has categorically stated that the only prayer made by the petitioner before him was for waiving of remaining amount of personal penalty and that he did not contest the correctness of imposition of redemption fine of 100% on the value of goods. In the memo of petition riled in this Court the petitioner has nowhere stated that these observations of respondent No.3 were not correct or are contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner before him. In these circumstances we cannot entertain the verbal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents incorrectly recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner had not contested reduction of 100% fine and that except for waives of personal penalty no other point was raised before him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is neither supported by the documents on record nor it is specifically taken in the memo of petition filed in this Court. We accordingly see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, and dismiss the petition but there will be no order its to costs. M.Y.H./H-170/K Petition dismissed.