1991 PLP 413 (SCMR)

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑4‑1988, by which the Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts in brief are that the petitioner imported two Drop Forging Hammers (Presses) alongwith accessories vide Bill of Lading dated 14‑1‑1984 against Import Licence issued under B.M.R. The goods were cleared in terms of S.R.O. 200(1)81 vide bill of entry dated 10‑3‑1984. The goods were assessed and, released on production of installation certificate. The indemnity bond was also released. On secret information that machinery was not in conformity with the import licence, the department started investigation against the petitioner and Dr. Faiz‑ul‑Hassan and Dr. T.M. Malik of Engineering University examined the machinery on 4‑7‑1985 on the request of the Customs Department. They gave a report that the machinery was old and used. The respondent No.3 reopened the case under section 195 of the Customs Act. After detailed inquiry, the respondent No.3 imposed penalty of Rs.2 lacs under section 156(1) clause (9) of the Customs Act. He further imposed a penalty of Rs.l lac under section 156(1) clause 14 of the Customs Act by means of order dated 23‑4‑1985. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by respondent No.2 on 9‑6‑1987 but the penalty was reduced by 50%. The petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 who dismissed the same on 10‑1‑1988. The petitioner then assailed these orders in a Constitution Petition before the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed on 9‑4‑1988. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the two Professors of the Engineering University had examined the machinery in the absence of the petitioner, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of these experts. We see no substance in this contention. At the request of the petitioner's counsel Dr. Faiz‑ul‑Hassan was cross‑examined at length by the counsel for the petitioner. After considering the evidence on record the Collector of Customs, came to the conclusion that:‑ "I find that the opinion given by the professors of the Engineering University is both weighty and convincing, and therefore, it is acceptable to me because they have substantiated their earlier finding by giving weighty and convincing arguments which go to prove that the machinery was old and used second hand and reconditioned." This finding of fact was confirmed by the respondents Nos.1 and

2. The High Court also examined the case of the petitioner and considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel but repelled the same for sound reasons. It was observed as under:‑ "After having read the order of the Collector Customs, Lahore, dated 23‑4‑1986, which is very detailed. I have not the slightest doubt that the machinery imported by the petitioner was old and used and reconditioned to make it look like new and that the opinion given by the two experts of the University on behalf of the department after they had examined the machinery on 4‑7‑1985 at a stage when the same had not been used, carries great weight. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine." The factual controversy had been resolved by the Administrative Tribunals. Evidence was recorded and considered by them. The experts had examined the machinery and gave their opinion. One of them had been cross‑examined by the petitioner. The same contentions were agitated before the High Court and they were repelled on sound reasons. All the forums have given their opinion on a finding of fact. There is nee point of law of public importance which requires examination by this Court. The petition has no force. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. AA./A‑728/S Leave refused.