MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL.-(l). This judgment shall decide W.P. No. 21441 of 2000, W.P. No. 21442 of 2000 and 21443 of 2000 as these proceed against a common impugned demand.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner imported goods from India which were denied clearance by the Customs Authorities at the Lahore Dry Port. As a result the imported goods were detained at Lahore Dry Port for a considerable period until the order for release of the same was passed by this Court in W.P. No. 16055 of 2000. In consequence the imported goods were released from the Dry Port by the Customs Authorities on 07.10.2000 as evident from their delay and detention certificate attached as Annex-B to the petition. It is acknowledged that the delay by the terms of the said certificate in clearance of the imported goods was caused by the Customs Authority and not by default of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as a result of the. Aforesaid certificate the petitioner is liable to pay storage charges for the imported goods to the respondent Railways but at the minimum tariff rate. Such right of the petitioner is recognized by the superior Courts in Aftab Ahmed Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan and others (1993 CLC 2022) and Mrs. M.H.B. Khan v. Regional Manager etc., dated 21-6-2000 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 320 of 2000 against the Railways authorities.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railways submits that the petitioner has no right to a lower tariff being charged for the extended period of storage of his imported goods, firstly, because he did not obtain an order from the Customs Authorities and secondly because the Railways is not to blame for the delay.
4. The pleas taken by the learned counsel for the respondents are not germane to the question in issue. The rule laid down by the superior Courts recognizes a right of the importer to a lower scale of storage and demurrage charges being leviable in a case where the delay in clearance of imported goods is attributable to the Customs Authorities. This rule has been laid down vis-a-vis the Karachi Port Trust and also Railways authorities. The facts of the present case and law cited above combine to bring the present case within the ambit of the said rule. The impugned demand is accordingly declared illegal. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore directed to recover from the petitioner the storage charges at a minimum tariff rate prescribed by them or such other rate as the Collector of Customs may fix in accordance with section 203 of the Customs Act, 1969.
Petition allowed.