' FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The petitioner No, 1 imported a vessel known as "Stolt Atlantic" for home consumption. The vessel was, on or about 3rd July, 1978 cleared from the Customs on payment of ad valorem duty at 33i%. On 22nd July, 1978 the petitioner claimed refund of a sum of Rs, 10,84,998.20 said to have been paid in excess, for the duty, according to them, ought to have been assessed at 12% ad valorem. This petition seeks a declaration that recovery of duty at 32-i% is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The alternative prayer that the respondents, who failed to make any order on the petitioner's application for refund, be directed to do so, was not passed before us.
2. The petitioner's case is that the said vessel arrived at the outer anchorage off Karachi Port at 0125 hours on 1-6-1975. The requisite bill of entry for home consumption was presented, as required by section 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, on Friday the 6th June, 1975 and the presentation thereof was permitted by the Principal Appraiser on the same day. The bill of entry on its reverse contains the following notings "We are lodging this Bill of Entry under section 79(1) of the Sea Customs Act and request you to order to examine the vessel and assess the separate value of all accessories other than fitted on Board. Further request you that all our documents are completed except articles list and shall be thankful if you kindly allow under appraisement first."
"Allowed.
Sd.
6-6-1975."
3. The petitioner contends that by the afforesaid noting, which was "allowed" by the Principal Appraiser, the presentation of the bill of entry before delivery of manifest was also allowed on 6-6- 1975 and that the fact that the noting was initialled by the Assistant Collector of Customs on 7-6- 1975 or that the bill of entry was returned to the petitioner's clearing agents for submission for assessm ent purposes, and the bill of entry was not machine numbered until 3-7-1975 are irrelevant, for the presentation of the bill of entry was made on 6-6-1975.
4. The petitioners emphasis that the bill of entry was presented on 6-6-1975 cannot be underestimated for section 30(A) of the said Act, inter alia, lays down that the value of and the rate of duty applicable to any imported goods shall be the value and the rate of duty in force, in the case of goods cleared for home consumption, under section 79, on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under that section. The import duty on imported vessel for breaking, was, it may be noticed, raised from 14% to 321% by Finance Act, 1975 which came into force from 1st July, 1975.
5. The case of the respondent is that the bill of entry in the present case was not presented until 3- 7-1975, though the Collector of Customs (Appraisement) in his comments submitted to this Court accepted that the bill of entry was presented on 7-6-1975. Before us if it was contended that in either event the higher duty was rightly levied.
6. Mr. Haider Mota, the learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that in so far as the vessel is concerned, the bill of entry when presented on 6-6-1975 was complete in all respects. The learned counsel contended that the law contemplated that an owner of any imported goods who is unable for want of full information to make a complete entry of any goods, may under proviso of subsection (1) of section 79 seek permission from authorised officer, to permit the importer, prior to the entry thereof, to examine the goods in the presence of an officer of the Customs. In relation to accessories on board such a request was made by the petitioner's clearing agents and was granted but such a request or its grant, the learned counsel went on to argue, did not make any less the complete the bill of entry in so far as the vessel itself was concerned as presented on 6-6- 1975. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that in the context of the said proviso, it may reasonably be inferred that in so far as the vessel was concerned the bill of entry duly completed was presented on 6-6-1975 but that unfortunately for the petitioner is not the end of the matter. As pointed out by Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the respondents, that bill of entry is relevant for the purpose of section 30-A which is presented in accordance with law, and the time for presentation of the bill of entry under subsection (2) of section 79 is after the delivery of the manifests which, in the present case was admittedly delivered on 6-6-1975. Faced with this situation Mr. Haider Mota, who left no stone unturned, contended firstly that under proviso to the said subsection (2) the Collector of Customs may in any special circumstances permit a bill of entry to be presented before the delivery of the manifest, which permission was if not expressly, impliedly granted in the present case and in the alternative the requirement of delivery of manifest was singularly inapplicable to an import of a vessel. As to the application of proviso to subsection
(2) of section 79 it may be noted that the Collector has to be appraised of special circumstances which obliges an importer to present a bill of entry before delivery of manifest. The petitioner did not make a request to the Collector of Customs for earlier presentation of bill of entry, much less that the designated officer was appraised of any special circumstances. It was contended that the Principal Appraiser by allowing the presentation of the bill of entry on 6-6-1975 had in effect granted permission to file it before delivery of manifest. The request made by the petitioner to the Principal Appraiser was to our mind limited to examination of the vessel for obtaining information as to accessories therein. Furthermore, such permission has to be granted by the Collector of Customs or by a Deputy or Assistant Collector of Customs, provided such Deputy o Assistant Collector have been delegated this function by the Central Board of Revenue. Section 3 of the Act does not permit delegation of powers of the Collector of Customs to a Principal Appraiser. The argument advanced, even if accepted does not help the petitioner, for if the bill of entry was accepted before delivery of manifest, under proviso to section 30 the relevant date for determination of rate of import duty is the date on which import manifest was delivered, which in the present case, is 7-6-1975, on which date, as will be presently shown, the increased duty had come into effect.
7. Coming to the contention that the requirement of delivery of a manifest provided for under section 43 was inapplicable to import a vessel, the learned counsel invited our attention to the dictionary definition of the word "manifest" as meaning "specifications of all cargo on board the ship". Section 45 of the Act also states that the every import manifest shall specify all goods imported in the vessel showing separately all goods, if any intended to be landed, transshipped, transmitted or taken on to another customs station or to a destination outside Pakistan and stores .Intended for consumption at the customs station or on the outward voyage or journey. The argument was that what was imported was a vessel and, therefore, there would be no goods on the board to be shown in the manifest.' The learned counsel relied on the following observation of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of East and West Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1) : "It is not necessary that every provision of Sea Customs Act, should be applied to a 'goods' for the purpose of filing Bill of Entry and levy of duty (if any).'
' The argument of the learned counsel is no doubt attractive but before it is concluded that a provision of law should be regarded as redundant in relation to a given set of facts it must be demonstrated that in the nature of things the provision is incapable of giving effect to Mr. Haider Mota, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not invite our attention to any international practice wherein the requirement of delivery of manifest is dispensed with. When the goods imported is a vessel. On the other hand, Mr. Saeed A. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the respondents by reference to several manifests pointed out that the import of a vessel is invariably followed by delivery of its manifest. There is still another aspect of the matter which to our mind makes delivery of manifest necessary in relation to all goods imported including vessel. As noticed above, an importer may be permitted by the Collector of Customs to present a bill of entry before delivery of manifest and in that event, the rate of duty will be that prevailing on the date of delivery of manifest. If, therefore, manifest is irrelevant to import of a vessel, one may be faced with situation where, there will be in case of advance presentation of its bill of entry, no provision in law determining the date for assessm ent of duty payable thereon. We cannot lightly presume any such lacuna in law. We are, therefore, of the view that in relation to an import of a vessel the law does not contemplate that its manifest will not be delivered, irrespective of the fact that in such a case there are no goods as such on board the vessel.
8. Faced with this situation, Mr. Haider Mota, contended that though bill of entry was presented before the actual delivery of manifest, it will be deemed to be presented subsequent thereto. Our attention was invited to section 43(3) under which the Master of the vessel is obliged to deliver the manifest within 24 hours of the vessel's anchorage within the limits of the port and it was argued that since in the present case the said vessel was anchored within the limits of the Port of Karachi on 1-6-1975, and the Master was obliged to deliver manifest within 24 hours of the anchorage, the manifest, the shipper was entitled to assume, was delivered within the mandatory time/period and the bill of entry presented after its expiry, on 6-6-1975, was in terms contemplated by section 79.
Section 79 in its plain language does not to our mind, require any interpretation. It speaks of presentation of bill of entry, after the delivery of manifest. There is no reason for giving these plain words extended meaning so as to mean that a bill of B entry can be presented when the manifest will be deemed to have been delivered. The learned counsel relied on the observation of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Amreliwala Hardware Industries v. Collector of Customs and others
(2) that- "It was not the intent of the law to make the duty payable dependent upon the will of the Master of the vessel or his caprice or neglect."
' In this case the bill of entry was filed with the permission of the Collector of Customs prior to the delivery of the manifest and the question for determination was the date on which the manifest was delivered for that date {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1976 SC 618 (2) PLD 1976 Kar, 196 {{FOOT NOTE}} would fix the rate of duty payable. The Master had filed two manifests dated 15-8-1975 and 27-8- 1975 and the Collector, relied on the second determined the duty payable and the Court came to the conclusion that on facts the second manifest was only a supplementary manifest and the relevant date for determining the duty payable was the date on which manifest was first delivered.
The aforesaid observation occurs in paragraph 6 of the judgment which reads as follows :- "We have also found substance in the argument of Mr. Haider Mota, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the manifest for the purpose of calculating customs duty under section 30 is the manifest delivered by the Master and accepted by the Customs notwithstanding its incompleteness or inadequacy under section 45(1) for only that part of the manifest is relevant for the purpose of section 30 which determines the arrival of the vessel and consequently the data of import. Any other interpretation would bring about absurd consequences. If in the present case, for example, the duty was higher on 15-8-1975 will the revenue be deprived of it by the omission of the Master to fully comply with subsection (I) of section 45? What would have been the consequences, if in the present case the omission in the manifest was in giving the required specifications or details regarding half of the total eviable cargo? Surely, it is not the intent of the law to make the duty payable dependent upon the will of the Master of the vessel or his caprice or neglect."
9. A bill of entry under subsection (2) of section 79 is to be presented after the delivery of the manifest, which would mean after its actual delivery. There is no room in this subsection for holding that a bill of entry may be presented after the expiry of the time within which the Master is required to deliver the manifest under section 43. A bill of entry cannot be presented before the actual delivery of the manifest unless of course under its proviso the Collector of Customs in special circumstances permits a bill of entry to be presented before the delivery of the manifest. Though the bill of entry in the present case was presented before the delivery of manifest, it was without the requisite permission from the Collector and, therefore, the fact that the manifest ought to have been filed earlier is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the duty payable. The bill of entry presented on 6-6-1975 was not in accordance with law, having been presented before the actual delivery of manifest, without the permission of the Collector and at best the bill of entry will be deemed to have been filed on 7-6-1975, which was the date on which the manifest was delivered.
10. The last contention of Mr. Haider Mota, relates to the date on which the budgetary measures for financial year, 1975 relating to increase in customs duty became effective. The budget containing the financial proposal of the Federal Government for the year beginning on 1st day of July, 1975 was introduced in the National Assembly of Pakistan in the evening on 7th of June, 1975 after office hours. It was contended that the Finance Bill, 1975 not having been published in Gazette cannot be given effect to from the date when it was presented in the National Assembly. A further grievance is that to the knowledge of the petitioner the bill did not contain a declaration that the provisions of the bill relating to imposition of duty of customs or excise of sales tax shall have immediate effect as contemplated by section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. On the assumption that the bill did contain such a declaration, the contention was that under section 4 of the said Act the increased duty became effective from the time-not the day-when the bill was presented in the Assembly and not prior thereto.
11. Now, in so far as the law is concerned section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 empowers the Central Government to insert in a bill providing for imposition or increase of duty of customs or excise o Sales tax, that it is in the public interest that such provision shall have effec under this Act. Such a provision in the bill is called a declared provision and under section 4 of the said Act the declared provision shall have the force o law with immediate effect as if enacted on the day on which the bill is introduced. Mr. Sayeed H. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of the Finance Bill, 1975 and it contains the said declaration. As to the non- publication of the bill in the Gazette to Mr. Haider Mota did not say that the law so requires it but argued that natural principle requires that before a law can be operative it must be published. I am doubtful if such a broad preposition can have invariable application. Section 5 of the General Clauses Act does not make operativeness or effectiveness of a law dependent upon its publication.
However, if the law provides that a declared provision will come into effect on presentation of a certain bill there would hardly be any occasion to attract principles of natural justice. Be that it may, in the present case the presentation of the bill in an open Assembly was sufficient publication.
It is also common knowledge that immediately effective budgetary proposals which vary taxes payable are invariably the highlights of a Finance Minister Budget Speech. Coming to the last leg of the argument that the budgetary proposals providing for increase in duty contained in the Finance Bill, 1975 came into operation at the time when the bill was introduced in the Assembly the learned counsel sought support from the original section 4 of the Act and its substituted section. The original section 4 of the Provisional-Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 provided that a declared provision shall have the force of law immediately on the expiry of the day on which the bill containing it is introduced. In other words the declared provision would be effective from the mid-night following the presentation of the bill. The substituted section 4 says that a declared provision shall have the force of law with immediate effect as if enacted on the day on which the bill is introduced. To put it differently the declared provision in the bill will be deemed to be enacted on the date of the presentation of the bill which provision shall have immediate effect. Mr. Haider Mota interpreted the words "with immediate effect" as meaning "with effect from the time of the presentation of the bill."
It is sufficient to say in answer that normally in the absence of intent to the contrary a law is not to be given effect to from the fraction of a day. The use of the words "with immediate effect," not uncommon in statutes, do not signal a departute from the rule of construction contained in section 5 of the General Clauses Act that a Central Act shall be construed as coming into operation immediately on the expiry of the day preceding its commencement. The declared provision, therefore, became effective from the mid-night of 6th and 7th of July, 1975.
12. The upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners were rightly charged duty on the imported vessel at 32% and there is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is dismissed with costs.