JUDGMENT TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.- This appeal was initially numbered as Custom Reference No. 1/1997; It is directed against the order dated 6.10.1996 passed by Custom, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs House, Lahore vide which it dismissed appellant's application for making a reference to this Court against the substantive order dated 18.6.1996 whereby the learned Appellate Tribunal had dismissed appellant's appeal impugning the Collector of Customs order dated 25.6.1995. By amendment in law the reference filed was converted into Custom Appeal No. 106/1998 (Reference No. 1/1997).
2. Facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant is importer of goods subject-matter of this appeal i.e. Gas Thermostat which according to him were classifiable under PCT heading 90.24 and therefore, custom free but subject to Sales Tax at the rate of 10%. The respondent Custom Department did not agree with the appellant's contention and instead of classified the goods under PCT heading 84.61 this view has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, In support of this plea learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions:-
(i) That the learned Appellate Tribunal has classified the goods in terms of a judgment of the august Supreme Court, which related to different goods and bills of entry whereas the goods subject-matter of this appeal were dealt with under distinct 39 bills of entry.
(ii) That the learned Appellate Tribunal failed to realize that in the 39 bills of entry referred to above the goods had rightly been classified under PCT heading 90.24. The order of the Custom Authorities reclassifying the goods under PCT heading 84.61 and the notice issued thereafter was challenged in Writ Petition No. 12282/1992, which was partly allowed. The case was remitted to Collector of Customs and appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- by January, 1995 which was challenged in the August Supreme Court by the appellant and the same was dismissed as not pressed, as the appellant wanted to avail the departmental remedy. The afore-referred observation according to learned counsel had the effect of reopening the issue and the Customs Appellate Tribunal should have decided the appeal on merit instead of in the light of the observation made by the august Supreme Court in a different context, In support of submissions made, learned counsel relied on Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and two others v. Punjab Steel Limited and another (1993 SCM R 2267), Collector of Customs and another v. Rave Spinning Limited and another (1999 SCMR 413) and Messrs Dada Soap Factory represented through Javed Manager and another v. Collector of Customs Appraisement and another (1999 CLC 762).
3. Learned counsel for the Customs Department defended the impugned order and contended as under:-
(i) That the issue raised in the instant appeal is the same raised in the earlier round of litigation pertaining to four bills of entry i.e. Classification of the goods subject-matter of this appeal namely Gas, Thermostat, Water and Heater the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4029/1984 dismissing the appellant's petition and the judgment of the august Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 433/1987 (dated 26.4.1991) affirming the afore-referred judgment of this Court which is applicable to the facts of this case and no question of law has been raised to warrant interference. He further submitted that with regard to the goods subject-matter of the instant appeal the judgment of this Court (passed by Mr. Justice Tanveer Ahmad Khan in Writ Petition No. 12282/1992) was affirmed by the august Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 212- L/1995.
The classifications of the goods in 39 his of entry in terms of these judgments of the august Courts remain the same PCT heading 84.61.
4. Heard.
5. It is not disputed by the appellant that the goods subject-matter of the 39 bills of entry out of which has arisen the instant appeal were the similar as in four bills of entry regarding which the august Supreme Court dismissed appellant's petition and whereby this Court in Writ Petition No. 4029/1984 had conclusively held as under: "In the circumstances of the .Instant case, however, the description given in the relevant item and its function duly demonstrated by the expert, produced by the petitioners, leave me in no manner of doubt, about its classification under item 84.64 of the Schedule."
The august Supreme Court upheld the findings of this Court after considering the nature of goods under both the P.C.T. Heading and the custom tariff. The two P.C.T. Headings are as under:- 90.24 "instruments and apparatus for measuring checking or automatically controlling the flow, depth, pressure or other variable liquids or gases, or for automatically controlling temperature, (for example, pressure gauges, thermostats, level gauges, flow meters, heat meters, automatic ovendraught regulators), not being articles falling within heading No. 90.14."
84.61 "Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances, for pipes, boiler shells, tanks, vata and the like, including pressure reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves."
In the 39 bills of entry out of which has arisen the instant appeal the appellant sought clearance of the goods on the basis of PCT heading 90.24 (like the relief sought with regard to the earlier four bills of entry which ended in judgment against the appellant by the August Supreme Court in Civil Petitions Nos. 433/1987, 133/1990 and 244 to 246 of 1990. A learned Judge of this-Court while dismissing appellant's Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No. 12282/1992) discussed in detail the history of appellant's earlier litigation the similarity of the nature of goods in the former four bills of entry and the 39 bills of entry and holding that the goods are classifiable under PCT heading 84.61 "However, keeping in view the interest of the parties, the case is remitted to the Collector, Customs, Lahore, on the limited question of calculating the liability of the petitioner under Heading 84.61 of PCT by associating him. The petitioner had agreed that he would deposit Rs.40 lacs (Forty lacs) prior to 15th January, 1995 enabling him to approach the Collector Customs for calculating the liability in accordance with Heading 84.61 of PCT. The Collector shall also consider the aspect of realizing the balance dues/amount through instalments if the petitioner honour his commitment of deposit before 15th of January, 1995. All other points raised by the petitioner are hereby repelled and the matter is remitted to the Collector Customs, Lahore on the limited question of calculation, In case the amount of 40 lacs is not deposited before the 15th January, 1995, as agreed, the department would be well within their right to proceed in the matter in accordance with the Recovery Rules of 1992. There shall be no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied).
This order was challenged in the August Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 212-L/1995 which came- up for hearing before the august Court on 20.6.1995. The case was adjourned to 26.6.1995, on the request of the learned counsel for the respondent Customs Department in following terms:- "Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the Collector, Customs, Lahore shall again calculate the liability of the petitioner after hearing him and/or his counsel. Petitioner is accordingly directed to appear before the Collector on 22.6.1995 Needless to observe that the officer shall attend to all the relevant points which the petitioner may canvass before him for the purpose of determining his correct liability. To come up on 26.6.1995."
And on 26.6.1995 the counsel for the Customs Department placed on record the total liability of the appellant as worked out by the Collector of Customs over which the appellant raised no objection and instead expressed a desire not to press the said petition with a view to avail Departmental remedy. The petition was dismissed as not pressed in terms as under:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would like to avail Departmental remedy, if any, against the aforementioned calculation/determination of his liability of the Collector of Customs and he, therefore, does not press the petition in this Court, In view of this statement, C.P. No. 212- L/1995 is dismissed as not pressed."
6. The findings of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12282/1992 qua classification of goods and questions of law were affirmed by the august Supreme Court while dismissing the petition as not pressed and the appellant was allowed to challenge the order of the Collector in terms of which appellant's total liability was worked out and placed before the august Supreme Court. Thus findings on questions of law could not have, been agitated either before the Customs Appellate Tribunal or before this Court. No other point of law has been raised. We are bound of the judgment of the august Supreme Court. The appeal having no merit is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.