2006 PLP 1353 (PTD)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has imported goods which were prohibited under the Import Policy Order, 2005. However vide S.R.O. 374(I)/02, dated 15-6-2002 ("S.R.O. 374"), issued by the Central Board of Revenue in exercise of its powers under section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 ("Act"), the release of such prohibited goods is allowed upon the payment of a redemption fine. The aforesaid concession of a redemption fine was, however, withdrawn vide S.R.O. 574(I)/05, dated 6-6-2005 ("S.R.O. 574"). Learned counsel submits that prior to the date of withdrawal of the redemption S.R.O. 374, the petitioner has already entered into a contract for the import of its prohibited goods on 30-3-2005. The payment for the said goods was remitted on 2-6-2005. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases Al-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1917), Federation of Pakistan and others v. Ch. Muhammad Aslam and others (1986 SCMR 916) and A. Razaq and Company v. Government of Pakistan and others (PLJ 2000 Lah. 52) to say that petitioner had acquired a vested right to the payment of a redemption fine for the release of the prohibited goods which were upon the event of their import confiscated by the respondent-Customs Authorities under section 181 of the Act. He also relies upon a judgment, dated 10-8-2005 of this court passed in Writ Petition No.13498 of 2005 wherein such redemption fine was declared to be a legal right of the importer in respect of his goods that had arrived in Pakistan prior to 6-6-2005, the date of the rescinding S.R.O. 574.

2. A perusal of the relevant provision of the Act, namely, section 16, shows that the prohibition applies to the "bringing into or taking out of Pakistan of any goods of specified description". The act of bringing goods into Pakistan was dealt by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled East and West Steamship Company v. The Collector of Customs and others (PLD 1976 SC 618). Such act is treated as being the act of import. For the purposes of the Act the event of import and bringing in goods are synonymous and in relation to the prohibition under consideration the same is incurred when the goods in question have crossed the customs border. It is only when the prohibition and the simultaneous confiscation have been incurred that any question of the terms of redemption may arise for consideration. On the day when the goods arrived in Pakistan, inter alia, vide the petitioner's IGM No. missing on the GD, dated 23-8-2005, the new S.R.O. 574 had already come into effect. On that date the redemption S.R.O. had already been withdrawn and the petitioner had no right to claim the benefit of the repealed S.R.O.

374. The learned counsel has contended that the petitioner incurred the prohibition on the date of the contract of supply of the prohibited goods. Therefore his right to redemption fine under S.R.O. 374 crystalized on that date which is prior to the date of the rescinding S.R.O.

574. This is an argument that is contrary to the scheme of section 15 or 16 of the Act which envisaged penalty or other consequence for import or export of prohibited goods and not contracts to import such goods. Accordingly the point raised is not germane to the controversy in hand.

3. The matter presently before this Court is also distinguishable from the case decided in the aforestated judgment of this court passed in W.P. No.13498 of 2005. The date of import of prohibited goods in that case was prior to 6-6-2005, the date of withdrawal of the concession of redemption fine, and therefore concession was held to be available in the case.

4. In view of the foregoing discussion this petition has no merit which is dismissed in limine. M.H./N-30/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.