SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-There are 133 petitions. By this judgment we pro--pose to dispose of Petition No. 1619/79 and 132 other petitions specified at the end of the judgment. In all the petitions principal facts and questions of law are common. For purposes of this judgment we will deal with the facts of Petition No. 1619/79 as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition have been adopted by all the Advocates.
1. This Petition No. 1619/79 like other petitions has been filed challeng--ing the action of the respondents refusing to give delivery of the vehicle to the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts of this Petition are that the petitioner's husband who possesses a Pakistani passport has been working abroad in Dubai for the last moi a than two years. It is alleged that under the gift scheme promulgated by the Government of Pakistan whereby Pakistanis living abroad were entitled to gift a reconditioned car to their family members, the petitioner's husband after complying with all the conditions laid down by the scheme gifted a Toyota Pickup 1500 cc, 1975 model to the Petitioner. The vehicle was shipped by the shippers, namely, AIWA Corporation of Japan under bill of lading No. NAPCC-27 dated 28-2-1979. After the arrival of the vessel at Karachi on 31-3-1979 the petitioner applied to respondent No. 2 for the import permit. In the meantime it seems that a large number of cars had been imported under the Gift Scheme. The respondent No. 2 had doubted the genuineness of those imports which were apprehended to have been made under an organised commercial adventure. Consequently a committee was formed which was to examine the cases and after its approval import permit was to be issued. The petitioner has stated that the bill of lading and all other documents submitted by her were examined and it was after such examination that the import permit dated 26th April, 1979 was issued to the petitioner. After obtaining the import permit the petitioner filed the bill of entry with the Customs Department for the release of the vehicle on payment of duty and sales tax but the respondent No. 3 refused to release the vehicle and returned the bill of entry stating that the name of the consignee as given in the Import General Manifest was different from the name mentioned in the bill of lading. It may be mentioned here that in the bill of lading the original entry showing the name of the consignee had been scored off and the peti--tioner's name had been entered. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the order of the respondents as without lawful authority. The respondents have contested the matter and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 inter alia states a3 follows :- "4. That it is submitted that initially the Chief Controller of Exports and Imports had issued the import permit in favour of the petitioner, but later on it was discovered that a large number of persons had illegally imported the cars by playing fraud on the Gift Scheme. In most cases cars were illegally imported for commercial purposes and documents were manipulated to show the import within the provisions of the Gift Scheme. In all such cases what was done was that the name of the origi--nal (true) consignees in the bills of lading were got changed in collusion with the local agents of the shipping companies. The Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Commerce and the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports had therefore issued instructions that the Customs Authorities need not honour an import permit if the consignee shown in the bill of lading presented to C. C. I. & E different from that shown in the Import manifest, as the manifest contained the name of the true consignee (Importer).
5. That in the present case the bill of lading was originally issued in the name of some one else but was subsequently got changed in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner's name does not appear in the Mani--fest and as such the petitioner is not the true owner of the car and is not entitled to clear the same. It is further submitted that bona fide mistakes if any, in the import manifest can be corrected as provided under subsection (2) of section 45 of the Customs Act, 1969, but in this case no correction in the Manifest was applied for by the Master of the Vessel or local agents of the shipping company. Ft- is significant to note that it is only in the case of re- conditioned cars that the names of consignees have been changed in the bills of lading and there are several hundred cases of this nature.
6. That the import of the car has been made in violation of the rules known as Gift Scheme and as such the clearance of the car has been refused by the Assistant Controller of Customs."
The other respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit.
3. Before we deal with the contentions of the parties it would be con--venient to examine the Gift Scheme which may be relevant for consideration of the dispute between the parties.
4. The Gift Scheme was introduced on 1st of April, 1975 to be effective from 1st July, 1975. One of the basic conditions for such import was that it should have been made against bona fide earning of the person making the gift. In order to ensure the correct working of this scheme a procedure was laid down in the scheme which is reproduced below. The Government noticed abuse of the scheme and on 28-12-1978 import of reconditioned cars was total--ly banned. However, as such an order was causing hardship the government issued instructions on 1-1-1979 that in cases where cars . Have already arrived or have been shipped before 28-12-1978 they may be allowed to be imported. A further relaxation was granted that if the cars could not be shipped on or before 28-12- 1978 but payments were made before 30th January, 1979 then such cars would be allowed to be imported provided each individual produces satisfactory documentary evidence of payment and further that the car arrives in Pakistan on or before 31st March, 1979. Rules 1 and 3 of the Scheme lay down the conditions of eligibility and the documents required to be submitted to the Licensing Authorities. Both the rules are reproduced hereunder :- "li Eligibility.-Subject to the exceptions mentioned below, a Pakistani National who has been abroad for six months or more is allowed to import a car for his personal use or if his stay abroad is two years or more can send a car as gift to a member of his family against his bona fide earnings abroad under the following revised rules : (Reconditioned/used second hand cars shall not be imported as gift except under personal baggage showing registration in the name of importers. Added in December, 1978).
Ineligible person.-The following persons shall not be eligible to import cars under this scheme :-- .
(i) Officials on leave or in transit (in Pakistan) to a posting to another country.
(ii) Pakistani students abroad receiving foreign exchange remittance from Pakistan (Students who have not received any remittance from Pakistan for two years before their return would be eligible to import a car pro--vided they fulfil other conditions mentioned in these rules).
(iii) Persons who have imported or sent a car as gift under the past two years.
(iv) Persons in Pakistan who have received a car as gift during the past two years, from their family members abroad. (A person shall be eligible to receive only one car as gift in two years).
(v) A person whose spouse has imported a car during the past two years.
(vi) A Pakistani who was imported a car Cornet-de-passage.
(vii) Non-earning members of the families of Pakistanis living abroad."
"3. Importer of the car shall submit the Liczsinng Authority an apple--cation for import permit in the form prescribed in Annex I and accompanied with the following documents :-
(a) Earning Certificate.-This document is required to verify that the importer had sufficient bona fide savings abroad to purchase the car. It will indicate gross earning of the importer and after deduction there--from of boarding and lodging expenses at the- prescribed rate --2 or its equivalent per day for immigrant labour and --5 or its equivalent per day for other Pakistanis including those going abroad on temporary duty training courses, fellowships, scholarships, etc., his not savings. The certificate issued by the Pakistan Diplomatic Mission only in the country` where the importer of the car was residing abroad in the pres--cribed form given to Annex II will be accepted. The Embassy Mission should annex with the earnings certificate the documents on which the certificate income has been based. In cases where husband and wife are both earning separately and living together in a foreign country, the Embassies may issue earning certificates by pooling the income of husband and wife subject to the condition that deductions for boarding and lodging expenses for the determination of savings are made for both of them separately in the usual manner at the prescribed rates. However, the facility for pooling of incomes will be allowed only in case both the husband and wife want to import one car only. If both of them intend to import separate cars, pooling shall not be permissible and normal Rules for accounting for their earning and savings ere. Shall apply.
(b) Purchase Receipt -This document shall show the value of the car and that order for the car was placed and also full payment was made before the arrival of the importer in Pakistan. In exceptional circum--stances, where for reasons beyond the control of the importer, part payment of the car is after the ,date of importer's arrival in Pakistan a `No-Objection Certificate' from the State Bank of Pakistan shall also be produced. Such part payment shall, however, not be permissible, after 30 days from the date of importer's arrival in Pakistan.
(c) Bill of lading.-This document shall be produced if the car is imported by sea and will show freight prepaid and shipment of the car within 4 months from the date of arrival of the importer in Pakistan.
(d) Registration Book of the car. This document shall be produced if the car was in use of the importer abroad and will show registration of the car in the importer's name.
(e) Customs Form (A).-This document shall be produced to show that importer had declared the car at the time of his arrival in Pakistan. If the car is brought by any importer with him by land route.
Customs Examination Report shall be produced in lieu of Form `A'.
(f ) Passport.-This shall be produced to enable the Licensing Authority to verify the Importer's stay abroad and whether he has imported a car during the past two years.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that she had complied with and had satisfied the conditions required for import of the reconditioned car. There is no dispute about the eligibility of the petitioner importing a car nor there is any dispute about the earning certificate submitted by the petitioner.
The only dispute seems to be that in the bill of lading first there appeared the name of some other consignee which was deleted and the name of the peti--tioner was entered in it. This amendment in the bill of lading was made at Karachi by the agents of the carriers alleged to be under the authority of their principals. This fact is not denied by the petitioner inasmuch as in the Import General Manifest (I. G. M.) that was filed by the carriers before the Customs Authorities the name of the previous consignee has been mentioned and consequently the agents of the carrier had applied to the Customs Autho--rities under section 45 of the Customs Act, 1969 for changing the name of the consignee to that of the petitioner. The Customs Authority did not grant the application. In this background the contention of Mr. Sharaf Faridi the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once after scrutinising all the necessary documents the respondent No. 2 had issued an import permit, the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to detain the car. It has further been contended that according to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3 the car has not been released on the instructions of the respondent No. 2 and it is pleaded that no order of cancellation or suspension of the import permit can be issued by respondent No. 2 much less without issuing any notice or according any opportunity of bearing to the petitioner. Therefore any such order or direction issued by the respondent No. 2 is illegal. The learned counsel for the peti--tioner has further contended that once an import permit has been granted a vested right is created and no adverse order can be passed against the peti--tioner without any show-cause notice.
5. From the contentions of the parties it is obvious that admittedly an import permit has been issued - to the petitioner after examining all the documents and even the bill of lading which was presented before the respondent No. 2 bore cuttings and alteration in the column entitled "Consignee". Before issuing the import permit the respondent No. 2 had in view the alleged fraud played upon the Gift Scheme by the importers and exporters and in this back--ground the documents submitted under Rule 3 were examined and approved and consequenty import permit was issued. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, reproduced above, it seems that the respon--dents after issuing the import parmit had given a second thought to the problem and without informing the petitioners or issuing any show-cause notice to them directly asked the respondent No. 3 not to release the car if the bill of lading bore cutting. 1f the cutting in the bill of lading as pointed out by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, now, would not have been on 'the original bill of lading when it was submitted to respondent No. 2, then there could have been some justification to take such an action. But once the bill of lading with the cutting and alterations was checked and on that basis the import licence had been issued it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to have issued a show-cause notice to the-petitioner before taking any adverse action which may stay its operation amounting to suspension or cancellation of import licence.' In this present case the import has not been challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to import the car or that the payment had not been made out the bona fide, earnings of the petitioner's husband who was abroad. All the conditions laid down under the Rules have been accepted by the responnent No. 2 to have been complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a case of Pakistan and another v. S. Hussain A.I Shah A. Fazlani (PLD 1960 SC 310). In this case an import licence for an Indian Cinema film was granted in accordance with the declared policy ,of Government. The licence was granted after proof of receipt in Pakistan or repatriated sale proceeds of a Pakistani film exported to India. The licence was cancelled on the ground that application for licence was not Accompanied by a banker's certificate showing that the money earned by the film exported had been repatriated. This action was challenged and the High Court issued a writ of mandamus. On an appeal the Supreme Court observed as follows "The pretext of non-compliance with the rules requiring submission of a bank certificate with the import application is clearly an afterthought and in light of the fact that the licence had actually been issued after proof of the receipts of the sale-proceeds of the respondents film from abroad, it would appear to be merely colourable. The licence granted was no more act of discretion or unilateral act on the part of the Government. It was granted in fulfilment of an undertaking which imposed certain prior conditions upon the applicant, which conditions he had fulfilled, and thereby there had accrued in his favour something in the nature of a legal right to an import licence of equivalent value: That right had been respected and in so doing the government had performed no bare uncontrolled act of discretion under their powers, but had exercised the relevant power as a matter of obligation in favour of the respondent."
A right to apply for an import permit or licence is a valuable right regulated by law. Where the law has prescribed preconditions for grant of import permit, the same having been complied with and accepted by the authorities A in pursuance whereof the import permit is issued, a valuable vested right in created in favour of the importer. In these circumstances as held in PLD 1972 Lab. 572 the import licence is not a mere matter of privilege.
6. In the present case the petitioner had complied with all the terms and conditions imposed under the Gift Scheme and the respondents were obliged to issue an import permit which in fact after due scrutiny was issued. In the circumstances the objection raised by the respondents seems to be an after--thought and their decision seems to be influenced by the fact that large number of cars had been imported which the respondents suspect to the fraudu--lent and colourable transaction under the garb of Gift Scheme. No doubt the respondent have every right to suspect and investigate the cases before granting import permit but once after due scrutiny the permit has been granted, it is not open to the respondent No. 2 to pass any order adverse to the permit holder without issuing a show-cause notice to him or affording an opportunity of being heard. The suspicion of the respondent No. 2 is a dis--puted question of fact which requires investigation whether a particular import g is a genuine import or a fraud upon the Gift Scheme. No such enquiry or investigation worth the name has been carried. Out by the respondents a nothing has been brought on record. It is only on certain presumptions and conjectures that the respondents Nos. 2 or 3 have suspended or in effect cancel--led the import permit without cancelling it. Once an import permit has been granted with knowledge of full facts coupled with the fact that the goods have already landed a vested right is created in the importer and if the permit is cancelled or in any manner modified to the disadvantage of the importer then it is incumbent upon the authorities to issue a notice so that the importer may have knowledge of the charge levelled against him and may have the oppor--tunity to reply it. No such action was taken by the respondents and the cases have been treated in a general routine manner without applying mind to the facts of the case. At this stage reference is made to following observation of the Supreme Courr in Faridson's case (PLD 1961 SC 537 "In the instant case there was no question of a mere exercise of discretion to grant a privilege like a licence to the appellants. The action savour--ed of inquisition and determination of; guilt and clearly the requirements of a notice coupled with an opportunity of hearing in advance were attracted to the case. Such a procedure was not followed by the Chief Controller. In my opinion therefore the orders passed by him were vitiated by his failure to follow the-.Principles of natural justice."
Further reference is made to the case of Chief Commissioner, Karachi v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 45) where this rule of justice was held to extend to all.., proceedings, by whomsoever held, which may affect the person or property or other right of the parties concerned in the dispute. In the present case all the. Documents including the bill of lading with alterations were submitted and upon scrutiny the import licence was granted. The: respondent No. 2 was satisfied that all the preconditions laid down by the Gift Scheme have been satisfied. In this situation a direction was issued to respondent No. 3 not to release the car. The petitioner was not called upon to show any cause nor given any opportunity to defend herself. Before the issuance of the order of suspension. Nor have Customs Authorities (respondent No. 3) taken any action as pro- -vided by section 26 of the Customs Act. The respondents till the hearing concluded did not state that the import permit has been cancelled. In these circumstances it is difficult to maintain such action.
7. Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh the learned- counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the provisions of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950 and Import Trade Control Order and referred to the Import Policy Order, 1978. The entire scheme of the Act is that all imports and exports are prohibited unless permitted under the order issued under section 3(1) of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The Federal Government may by order and subject to such conditions and exceptions as may be made prohibit, restrict or otherwise control the goods. It is further regulated by import policy which is issued periodically and in the present case the relevant period is of the year 1978. Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh has pointed out that section 3(3) of Import & Export (Control) Act, 1950 provides that "all goods to which any order under subsection (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods on which the import or export has been prohibited or restricted under section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 and all provisions of the Customs Act shall have effect ac--cordingly". Some powers as provided under section 3(1) of Import & Export (Control) Act, 1950 have been vested in the Federal Government under sec--petition 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 under which the Federal Government may, from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette prohibit or restrict the bringing-in or export of goods of specified discription. The learned counsel for the respondents further referred to section 26 of the Customs Act whereby an appropriate Officer, made by requisition in writing require any person concerned with the importation or exportation to furnish such information relating to the goods as may be necessary for determining the legality or illegality for the importation or exportation of such goods, the value of such goods, nature, amount and source of the funds with which the goods were acquired and the custom duty chargeable thereon. By referring to these provisions the learned counsel concluded that the Customs Authorities have power to question the import and detain it if independently they question in the legality of the import.
8. This provision of Customs Act (section 26) confers power on the ap--propriate Officer but it does not mean that it vests him with a power of making a roving inquiry. To start with the proceeding can be initiated only by issuing a requisition in writing requiring the importer/exporter to furnish such parti--culars as may be required. In the present case no notice in writing was issued to the petitioners for furnishing any information or particular. The appropriate Officer can exercise this power and call for information for determining the legality or illegality in importation and exportation. In the present case the scope to investigate the illegality in the import under section 26 of Customs Act, seems to be sufficiently restricted. The Gift Scheme provides for the conditions which should be satisfied before obtaining the import permit. It includes the proof of earning, source of income, payments made to the seller, export made within a specified period and the eligibility of the importer. All these conditions are to be satisfied and checked by the respondent No. 2 before issuing the import permit. Once an import permit under this scheme has been issued it shall be presumed that the importer has satisfied all the pre--conditions prescribed by the Federal Government. The permit will however be liable to be cancelled if it is shown that it has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. However, before any action for suspension or cancellation is taken notice should be given to the importer. Where an import permit, after complying with all the preconditions has been produced before the Custom Authorities the Appropriate Officer cannot under section 26 o Customs Act investigate into the same conditions which have been complied with and accepted by the Licensing Authorities unless he is able to show that inspite of the permit the import is illegal or that the permit has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. In the present case the Customs Authorities is refusing to release the car have entirely relied upon the direction of respondents No. 1 and 2 who have presumed that all such imports where the name of the consignee has been substituted in the bill of lading are illegal and in viola--petition of the Gift Scheme. Such instructions issued to the Customs Autho--rities by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been called in question as it amounts to cancellation or suspension of the import licence. We have already discussed above that the action on the part of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 withoutgiving any notice or affording any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause is- not warranted in law.
9. Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh the learned counsel for respondents has further contended that the large number of cars were imported in which there were common features, namely, shippers in all cases were the same person, bills of lading were almost of the same date, the addresses of the donees are at Karachi although the addresses of the donors are at different places of Pakistan. The alteration in the bill of lading by scoring, out the original consignee and substituting the donee's name and that the change in the bill of lading was made at Karachi after the arrival of the vessel.
These common features appearing in the import of a large number of cars created a suspicion and therefore, the respondents took action against the importers. Be that as it may, these features were available to the respondent No. 2 at the time when they were examining the documents for issue of the import permit. The res--pondent No. 2 were faced with this situation and for this purpose an Inspec--petition Committee was appointed to scrutinize each case individually. It was after such scrutiny that the import permits were issued and therefore, in respect of those cases where import permit has been 'issued unless the respon--dents establish that the same has been obtained by fraud or concealment of material facts which could not be discovered at the time of scrutiny, it is not possible for the respondents to cancel or suspend the same unilaterally and refuse to release the cars. The respondents have not cancelled the import permit and therefore it is valid till it is legally avoided. In these circumstance an import against such permit cannot be termed as import in contravention of the restrictions and prohibitions and no adverse action can be taken against the importer.
10. Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh the learned counsel for the respondents has sub--mitted that the import is complete the moment the vessel arrives and in the Import General Manifest the name of the consignee was different from that in whose favour the import licence had been issued the substituted consignee will not be entitled to take delivery of the car.
11. Mr. Sharaf Faridi the learned counsel for the petitioner has con--tended that on arrival of the vessel at the instructions of the carriers their agents amended the original bill of lading which was produced before them by the petitioner. He has further contended that the petitioner is holding the original bill of lading and till this date no third party has come forward to make any claim in respect of the car, therefore, it conclusively proves that the petitioner is the genuine and undisputed consignee. The learned counsel has further contended that under section 45 of the Customs Act the carrier's agents had applied for the amendment of I. G. M. Which has been illegally . Rejected by the respondent No. 3. We would refrain for making any obser--vation on this aspect of the case as the grounds discussed above are sufficient to dispense of the petition. Further any observation on this aspect of the case is likely to affect a large number of cases involving same questions which have been by consent of parties remanded for determination by respondents Nos.
2 and 3.
12. In view of this discussion we declare that in Petitions Nos. 1619/1979, 9'18/1979, 1016/1979, 1020/1979, 1063/1979, 1068/1979, 1087/1979, 1111/1979, 1112/1979, 1113/1979, 1121/1979, ,1122/1979, 1131/1979, 1148/1979, 1226/1979, 1227/ 1979, 1236/ 19 79, 1238/ 1979, 1243/ 1979, 1244/ 1979, 1245/ 1979, 1249/ 1979 1250/1979, 1253/1979,1257/1979, 1259/1979, 1261/1979, 1264/1979, 1328/1979, 1353/1979, 1429/1979, 1431/1979, 1461/1979, 1462/1979, 1463/1979, 1464/1979, 1465/1979, 1466/1979, 1467/1979, 1469/1979, 1477/1979, 1478/1279, 1480/1979, 1481/1979, 1482/1979, 1505/1979, 1507/1979,1511/1979, 1517/1979 1520/1979, 1526/1979, 1527/1979, 1530/1979, 1547/1979,1569/1979,1570/1979, 1574/1979, 1575/1979, 1576/1979,1577/1979,1578/1979,1595/1979, 1599/1979, 1607/1979, 1621/1979,1622/1979,1623/1979,1624/1979, 1625/1979, 1626/1979,1627/1979, 1628/1979, 1671/1979, 1672/1979, 1973/1979, 1681/1979, 1683/1979, 1684/1979, 1685/1979, 1686/1979,1688/1979, 1710/1979, 1711/1979, 1712/1979, 1713/1979, 1788/1979, 1792/1979, 1794/1979, 1795/1979, 1797/1979, 1798/1979, 1820/1979, 1821/1979, 1823/1979,1825/1979,1827/1979, 1830/1979, 1832/1979, 1844/1979, 1846,11979, 1847/1979, 1848/1979, 1849/1979, 1851/1979, 1854/1979, 206/1979, 2001/1979, 2002/1979, 2003/1979,2004/1979, 2006/1979, 2007/1979, 2008/1979, 2140/1979, 2142/1979, 2143/1979, 2163/1979, 2187/1979, 2188/1979, 2189/1979, 2217/1979, 2218/1979, 12/1980, 13/1980, 14/1980, 17/1980, 18/1980, 19/1980, 23/1980, 115/1980, 119/1980, 1200/1980, and 231/1980 the impugned order direction/action of the respondents refusing to release and deliver the car to the respective petitioners is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We direct the respondents to release/deliver the car on payment of required duty, and sales tax or dues.
There will be no order as to costs.