MR. JUSTICE NASIM SIKANDAR.-(1). 1h this Constitutional petition following prayer has been made:- In light of the above mentioned circumstances it most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order by directing:-
(i) The respondent No. 2 to release the consignment immediately by passing order of out of charge on the same value as it has been assessed by the appraisement branch and has already paid by the petitioner, without any demurrage and cost.
(ii) To the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to order the respondent No. 2 to release the consignment immediately without any coercive measure against the petitioner.
(iii) To the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to take appropriate action against the respondent No. 1 in term of his illegal and unlawful act by detaining the consignment of the petitioner.
(v) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and appropriate.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am persuaded to allow the aforesaid-relief. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the consignment imported by the petitioner was assessed and duty was also paid by the importer/petitioner. The detention of goods on the basis of a matter pending before the Collector (Adjudication) qua similar goods imported by another person does not change the legal position as to the assessment of duty which was earlier made by the Revenue.
3. Reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on a reported judgment of Karachi High Court in re: Messrs Zeb Traders v. Federation of Pakistan (2004 PTD 369) is pertinent and relevant. Their Lordships of the Karachi High Court in an identical situation observed that if the goods imported were appraised and assessed to custom duties and taxes which were duly deposited the Customs authorities were not entitled to retain them although they were at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law if they had adequate material for initiation of proceedings under section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The other two reported judgments re: Haji Noorul Haq v. Collector of Customs and others 1998 M LD 650 = PTCL 1998 CL. 435 and re: Messrs Yousaf Re- Rolling Mills v.
Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and another 1986 CLC 71 also support the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for petitioner.
4. Being in respectful agreement with the ratio settled in the aforesaid judgment, I will allow this petition and direct the Revenue authorities to immediately release/clear the goods on the assessm ent already made and taxes paid thereupon. However, it goes without saying that per ratio of the said judgment, the Revenue authorities will have the jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with law and the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 if they are in possession of sufficient material to justify such proceedings: