' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---In a nutshell the petitioner's case appears to be that they imported certain goods from abroad for being consumed and used in their factory at Akora Khattak. The goods landed in Karachi and were taken to the factory premises under transit passes issued by the then Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. However, after some time it was found that part of these goods were required for the petitioner's factory at Karachi and they were accordingly brought back in trucks. The petitioners were willing to pay octroi leviable but the officers of the respondent treated the matter as one of the evasion of octroi and proceeded accordingly. The respondent No.1 imposed the maximum penalty of 10 times the value of octroi leviable on the goods and also cancelled the transit pass facility accorded to the petitioner. This order was assailed before the Appellate Authority i.e. The Mayor of Karachi who upheld the same but reduced the compensation fee to 5 times the amount of octroi payable. The petitioner questioned this order through an appeal before the Sindh Local Government Tribunal, who partly allowed the same, holding that there was no provision of law whereby the transit pass facility could be revoked by way of penalty.
Nevertheless maintained the levy of composition fee of 5 times the amount of octroi paid.
2. Apparently the order of the Tribunal was defied with impunity by officers of the erstwhile Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and while consent order was passed by this Court on 1-7-1987, whereby the respondents undertook to restore the transit pass facility, but took the respondents more than a year to comply with such order only after proceedings for contempt were initiated by this Court.
3. Nevertheless be that as it may the petitioner questioned the levy of composition fee, sought directions for restoration of transit passes and refund the amount recovered as a result of cancellation of such facility. Admittedly the transit pass facility was restored in 1988 and octroi is no more leviable. The real question to be decided in this petition, therefore, relates to the levy of compensation fee.
4. Mr. Zaheer Minhas, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was bona fide requirement of the petitioner to bring the goods sent to their factory in Akora Khattak back to Karachi and they had agreed to pay octroi leviable at the relevant time and therefore, there could be no justifiable basis for assuming that it was a case of evasion of duty. On the other hand Mr. Manzoor Ahmad and Mr. Abbas Ali, learned Additional Advocate-General have pointed out that the relevant octroi schedule dated 11-7-1982 provided no separate rates of duty for goods imported into municipal limit from abroad and from other parts of the country in Schedules 'A' and 'IV respectively. Under Item No.56 of Schedule 'A' octroi on the goods in question was leviable at the rate of 1.5% ad valorem and according to the note filed today on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2, the amount of duty worked out on the particular assignment to Rs.13,343. However, in case such goods were imported from any place within Pakistan octroi could only be levied in terms of Item 4(i) of Schedule B and at the rate of Rs.60 per ton. Therefore, octroi on the same goods brought from Akora Khattak would only amount to Rs.749.
5. This difference of rate of octroi indicates that it might be profitable for an importer to import the foreign goods into some other place in Pakistan and thereafter pay a lesser rate of duty. In fact the learned Tribunal had adverted to this aspect of the case and recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the petitioner's conduct did not appear to be altogether bona fide. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy that there was any serious legal error in the consistent finding of fact, recorded by three fora so as to merit our interference under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition on this ground must fail.
6. As regards the losses sustained by the petitioner on account of collection of octroi on goods which ought to have been covered by transit pass facility, we are afraid that this would require a detailed factual inquiry, which we cannot undertake in these proceedings. The respondents in their comments filed today, have suggested that they are prepared to entertain a claim for refund upon presentation of relevant documents. Even otherwise the petitioner is free to approach a competent Civil Court for recovery as well as damages. This petition is therefore, dismissed.