MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR.-(1). The respondent imported a vehicle under the gift scheme vide I.G.M, dated 7-6-2005. For the purposes of availing the said gift scheme it was envisaged by the Import Policy Order 2004-2005 that the vehicle should be of model not more then 2 years, prior to the import. However, vide Import Policy Order 2005-2006 which was enforced on 21-7-2005, the above period was increased to 3 years. Be that as it may, on 5-10-2005 the petitioner department issued a notice to the respondent that the vehicle is not covered by the 2 years period and in fact is a 3 year old model, therefore, why it should not be confiscated. After adjudication Order-in-Original was passed against the respondent confiscating the car which order was challenged by the respondent and subject of payment of a fine the car was released to the respondent. The respondent challenged the afore-said order by filing a constitutional petition before the learned High Court which has been allowed vide impugned judgment dated 17-4-2009. The learned Judge in Chambers by relying upon the judgments reported as Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. And others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PTCL 1993 CL. 188) and Anoud Power Generation Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PTCL 2001 CL. 277) has held that as the subsequent Import Policy Order 2005-2006 provided a period of 3 three years to avail the benefits of gift scheme and the vehicle of the respondent pertains to this period, therefore, the latter policy would have retrospective effect and the confiscation order passed by the adjudicating authority was not legally tenable.
2. Leamed counsel for the petitioners contends that both the Import Policy Orders are independent; they cover different periods; there is no reference in the subsequent Policy Order 2005-2006 that it has any nexus with or impact or effect on the earlier Policy Order, hence the principle of beneficial interpretation qua retrospectively would be inapplicable. The judgments, to which reference has been made by the learned Judge in Chamber are distinguishable in their on. Facts. It is argued, that a subsequent notification would not have an automatic retrospective effect rather it had to be spelt out from the notification itself that it has such an impact upon the earlier notification.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and find that before any action was initiated by the petitioner against the respondent, a new Policy Order has come into force on 21-7- 2005 in which the period for the import of a vehicle was increased from 2 years, to 3 years.
Obviously in the light of the law laid down in the judgments supra, such notification by all means can be given a beneficial interpretation and retrospective effect accordingly, which is exactly what has been done by the learned Judge in Chambers. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed and leave refused.