1. ' The petition is directed against the order dated 30th of April 2003, passed by the Member (Legal)
2. Central Board of Revenue, under section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969, upholding the Order- inOriginal dated 11-11-1999, passed by the Collector of Customs (Exports) Karachi. In the Order in Original, it was directed that Rs,2,93,280,72 paid as duty drawback to Messrs Heena Garments and distributed between Shaikh Rasheed Ahmed and his son Muhammad Sohail and Muhammad Yousuf and his mother, shall be recovered from Shaikh-Rasheed Ahmed, Muhammad Sohail and Muhammad Yousuf. The amount to be recovered from each of the above persons was also specified in the Order in Original.
3. ' The main grievance of the petitioners canvassed by Mr. Abdullah Chandio, is that the petitioners were not supplied the copies of documents on the basis whereof they were charged for mis- declaration and the impugned order was passed and they were not provided opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. He has submitted. That an application for summoning the witnesses was submitted before the Adjudicating Officer [Collector of Customs (Exports)].
4. A perusal of the Order-in-Original shows that the application for summoning the witnesses was submitted which was considered by the Adjudicating Officer. He observed that the names and further details of the witnesses sought to be summoned were not given in the application. The Advocates for the petitioners appearing before the Adjudicating A Officer, were advised to inspect the case record again in presence of Principal Appraiser and to communicate the names of the witnesses in writing to whom they want to cross-examine. The Principal Appraiser (Law) was directed to show the record to the learned Advocate and obtain from him the list of witnesses and also to summon the witnesses as early as possible for further proceedings. The Adjudicating Officer, has further observed in the Order-in-Original that the learned two Advocates inspected the record in presence of Principal Appraiser (Law) of Customs Exports Collectorate, but they did not provide the list of persons to be cross-examined. So far, the non-supply of the copies of relevant document is concerned, we find that an application was submitted in this behalf also and the Adjudicating Officer directed the Principal Appraiser (Law) to provide the entire record to the Advocates for the petitioners and give opportunity to them to examine the record in their presence.
5. The Principal Appraiser (Law) was further directed to allow the learned Advocates to take photocopies of the relevant records enabling them to put further reply. It appears that this opportunity was also not availed.
6. ' Mr. Abdullah Chandio, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the Adjudicating Officer directed the Principal Appraiser (Law) to give opportunity to the Advocates for the petitioners to examine the record and obtain the photocopies of the relevant record but in fact the opportunity was not provided.
7. ' A perusal of the Order-in-Original shows that the order was passed after hearing of the learned Advocates and no such point was raised before the Collector that the opportunity as directed by him was not afforded.
8. ' We have asked Mr. Abdullah Chandio, if the learned Advocates for the petitioners brought the fact of non-compliance, to the notice of the Collector (Adjudicating Officer) in writing to which he has stated that there is nothing on record in this behalf.
9. ' In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that full opportunity was provided to the petitioners to obtain the copies of the relevant record and to submit the list of witnesses, whom the petitioners wanted to cross-examine, but the opportunity was not availed by the petitioners. The grievance in this petition is therefore, not sustainable. No other point has been raised in support of the petition. We are of the opinion that the grievance in support of petition is without substances, and consequently, we do not find any illegality warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition is therefore, dismissed in limine along with listed application.