Rana Sakhawat Ali, Advocate holding brief for Mr. M. Adnan Moton, learned counsel for the petitioner , who is reportedly unwell, however , under instructions submits that instant petition can be disposed of in terms of Judgment of Divisional Bench of this Court dated 14.11.2018, passed in C.P No.D-8281 of 2017 (and others) in the case of Messrs Sky Overseas v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2019 PTD 1964 ). Copy of such judgment has been placed on record.
Learned counsel for respondents and learned DAG do not dispute such factual position and submit that instant petition can also be disposed of in simila r terms. It will be advantageous to reprod uce the relevant findings of this Court in relation to subject controversy , which is contained in Paras 27 to 29 in the aforesaid judgment:- "27. In the circumstances at hand where not only through the amendment in clause (a) of Rule 107 the earlier period of plus-minus ninety days for the determination of the customs values prevailing at or about the same time has been stretched till the valuation is revisited, in our humble opinion, has put a serious dent, to the flexibility and framework of trade and commerce offered by GATT, which flexibility did not come cheap. Developing countries painstakingly negotiated these concessions. The WTO rounds at Uruguay and Doha in 1986 and 2001 respectively brought reduction in tariff (about 40%) and sought subsidies including an agreeme nt to allow full access of textile and clothing from developing countries (which largely benefited Pakistan and Bangladesh) and a mechanism for the protection of Intellectual Property Rights was also agreed. It is for that reasons that we see the amendments in Rule 107(a) brought in by SRO 564(1)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 are not only made in violation of the principal legislation i.e. Customs Act, 1969, in our humble view it also negates the very mechanism established under WTO system embodied in Section 25 of the Customs Act. Therefore, such amendment in Rule 107 clause (a) through, SRO 564(1)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, cannot be interpreted in terms of impugned Circular No.SI/Misc./13/2014:CC(Appr)/375 dated 22.11.2017 issued, from the Office of the Chief Collector of Customs Appraisement (South), Custom House, Karachi, according to which "at or about the same time" expression has been endlessly stretched from initial 180 days (sic) till the date such Valuation Ruling is rescinded, modified or replaced " Reliance in this regard can also be placed in the case Sadia Jabbar v. Federation of Pakistan (2018 PTD 1746 ), wherein, it has been held that a Valuation Ruling "must therefore ordinarily be regarded as valid for a period of ninety days from the date of issuance, and any aggrieved importer has the right to approach the concerned officer after the ninety day period mentioned above, and he would then have to give reasons why the ruling has not been revised or rescinded". Further reliance can be placed in the case of Danish Jahangir v. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary/Chairman and 2 others (2016 PTD 702), wherein, it has been held that:- "In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances we while disposing of instant petition direct the respondents as under:--
(1) In cases where the Valuation Ruling is more than 90 days old and an importer has approached Director Valuation in terms of Para 21 of the judgment in the case of Sadia Jabbar supra , fresh consignments of such importers shall be allowed provisional release in terms of Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 by securing the differential amount of duty and taxes in the shape of Pay Order/Bank Guarantee as the case may be, by the Director V aluation or the concerned Collector without fail.
(2) In cases where a proper revision application has been filed by an importer in terms of Section 25-D of the Customs Act, 1969, before the Director General, Valuation, and pending such review/revision, a fresh consignment is imported, then at the request of the importer who has filed such revision/review , the consignment in question shall be released in terms of Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 after securing the differential amount of duty and taxes in the shape of Pay Order/Bank Guarantee as the case may be, by the Director General Valuation, without fail.
(3) Needless to observe that any willful disobedience and defiance of these directions shall entail initiation of contempt of court proceedings against such delinquent of ficer(s).
28. Without prejudice to our hereinabove findings regarding legality and interpretation of amendment in Rule 107(a) of the Customs Rules, 2001 through SRO 564(1)/201 1 dated 01.07.2017, we, may further observe that the Chief Collector Customs and/or for such purpose the Federal Board of Revenue has no authority to issue any circular and administrative direction of the nature, which may interfere with the judicial or quasi-judicial function entrusted to the various functionaries under Statute. Any circular or instructions issued by the FBR or by any other officer performing functions under the administrative control of F.B.R, relating to interpretation of any statutory provision, rule or regulation, cannot be treated as judicial interpretation, hence not binding on authorities performing judicial ad/or quasi-judicial functions. Reliance in this regard can be placed in the case of Central Insurance Company v.
Central Board of Revenue (1993 SCMR 1232 ), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the legality of a Circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue, interpreting the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, has been pleased to hold as under:- "22. It is evident from the above provisio ns that though the. Central Board of Revenue has administrative control over the functionaries discharging their functions under the Ordinance, but it does not figure in the hierarchy of the forums provided for adjudication of assessee's liability as to the tax. In this view of the matter , any interpretation placed by the Central Board of Revenue, on a statutory provision cannot be treated as a pronouncement by a forum competent to adjudicate upon such a question judicially or quasi-judicially . We may point out that the Central Board of Revenue cannot issue any administrative direction of the nature which may interfere with the judicial or quasi-judicial functions entrusted to the various functionaries under a statute. The instructions and directions of the Central Board of Revenue are binding on the functionaries discharging their functions under the Ordinance in view of Section 8 so long as they are confined to the administrative matters. The interpretation of any provision of the Ordinance can be rendered judicially by the hierarchy of the forums provided for under the above provisions of the Ordinance, namely , the Income Tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner , Appellate Tribunal, the High Court and this Court and not by the Central Board of Revenue. In this view of the matter , the interpretation placed by the Central Board of Revenue on the relevant provisions of the Ordinance in the Circular , can be treated as administrative interpretation and not judicial interpretation.
29. Keeping in view hereinabove legal position as emerged under the facts and circumstances of instant case and by respectfully following the ratio of the above cited judgments, the impugned Circular No.S1/Misc./13/2014: CC(Appr)/375 dated 22.11.2017, was declared to be illegal, without lawful authority vide our short order dated 14.11.2018 and these are the reasons for such short order ."
Accordingly , instant petition stands disposed in the above terms along with listed application.