The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the following prayers:--
(a) Declare that the refusal/inaction of the Respondent No.2 to release the petitioner's consignment of coconut oil presently in the bounded warehouse is arbitrary, illegal confiscatory and contrary to the provisions of Customs Act, 1969.
(b) Direct the Respondents to release 86 drums of coconut oil imported by the petitioner, which are presently in the bonded warehouse for supply to the soap manufacturer as raw material.
(c) Grant any other relief deemed just an appropriate in these circumstances of the case.
(d) Grant cost of petition.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this litigation are that in the month of June, 2002, the petitioner imported a consignment of 18,240 Kgs. Edible coconut oil contained in 96 drums of 190 Kgs each. In July, 2002 this consignment was placed in the bonded warehouse and subsequently then drums were got ex-bonded by the petitioner in the month of October, 2002. In July, 2003, when the petitioner filed ex-bond bill of entry for release of another twenty drums, respondent No.2 refused to process the bill of entry for ex-bond and raised objection with reference to the quantify of FFA (Free Fatty Acid) contents of the coconut oil. In response to such objections, petitioner moved several applications before the respondents for re-testing/release of the consignment, as inedible coconut oil, which may be used for soap manufacturing, but with no result. This inaction of respondents necessitated filing of this petition for the reliefs reproduced above.
3. Mr. Khalid Jawaid Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as per first test report, dated 24-7-2002, the declaration given by the petitioner in respect of the disputed consignment, as edible coconut oil, was correct. As per subsequent report of PCSIR Laboratories, the remaining quantity of coconut oil was again found fit for human consumption, but after proper drying.
However, as per third report, dated 8-5-2004, it was declared as inedible coconut oil, which can be used for soap manufacturing. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached respondent No.2 with the request for release of his consignment of inedible coconut oil with undertaking that it will be supplied to soap manufacturers for that purpose, as such practice was followed by the respondents in respect of other consignments in the past. To and force to his submission that the petitioner is entitled to get release of his consignment subject to certain conditions, Mr. Khalid Jawaid Khan has placed on record copies of letters, dated 4-12-1998, 18-12-1998 and 24-3-1999 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Health and Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) Oil Section, respectively, which show that earlier in somewhat similar circumstances, respondents have released the consignment of contaminated palm oil for use in soap manufacturing units. He contended that the petitioner being placed in similar position is entitled for equal treatment, therefore, his consignment of inedible coconut oil may be ordered to be released on payment of all the leviable duties etc. And upon furnishing of indemnity bond that on release of the consignment it will be exclusively used for soap manufacturing purpose.
4. Mr. Raja M. Iqbal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, did not agree to such proposal extended by Mr. Khalid Jawaid Khan. He contended that on 25th of September, 2004, Contravention Report has been prepared by respondent No.2 and on the basis of such report further proceedings are to be initiated against the petitioner. In such circumstances, release of consignment at this stage will prejudice the proceedings/actions which may be ultimately taken against the petitioner for violation of section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 read' with Serial a (i.e) of Table to S.R.O. 374(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002, which is punishable under clause (14) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.
5. Mr. Sajjad Ali Shah, learned D.A.-G. Did not seriously oppose the release of consignment to the petitioner subject to the payment of all the leviable duties and execution of indemnity bond by the petitioner. He further submitted that, to secure further interest of the respondents, in case penalty is imposed upon the petitioner during the proceedings, initiated on Contravention Report, apart from the payment of duties the petitioner may also be directed to furnish some tangible security equivalent to the value of the consignment.
6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of case record, we find that learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the test report, dated 8-5-2004, which shows that disputed consignment of coconut oil is not more fit for human consumption but it can be now used for soap manufacturing purpose. In such circumstances, we intend to dispose of this petition in the terms A that the disputed consignment of inedible coconut oil may be released to the petitioner on payment of all the leviable duties on the consignment and fulfillment of all such other conditions as contained in letter No.S1/Misc./243/98-Oil, dated 24-3-1999, placed on record by the petitioner. In addition to it, the petitioner will also furnish security with the. Nazir of this Court equivalent to the value of the consignment as assessed by the respondents. .
7. Before parting with this order, we may further observe that if any proceedings are initiated or are pending against the petitioner on the basis of Contravention Report, dated 25th September, 2004, same shall follow its on course without being prejudiced by this order. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.