' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--Petitioners imported consignment against Import License No,601169 at Serial Number 268 of Import Policy Order under "Domestic Electrical Appliances Parts". Show-cause notice was issued by Customs to the petitioners on the ground that there was contravention of Import Trade Regulations and there was missed coloration of the description of goods imported.
According to the Customs the goods in question were discharged lamps (Fluorescent Tubes) falling under heading 85.20(A) of Pakistan Customs Tariff subject to 921% duty and 20% sales tax and were not Cathode Ray Tubes falling under. heading 85.21(A) of P.C.T. subject to 20% duty as claimed by the petitioners, Petitioners replied the show-cause notice and appeared before the respondent No,4 Assistant Collector of Customs, who after giving him hearing passed order, dated 6-8-1975 that the goods were discharge lamps (Fluorescent Tubes) and were dutiable under heading 85.20(A) of P.C.T. The goods were confiscated but it was left open to the petitioners to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs,30,000 plus duty and sales tax. Against this order petitioners carried appeal to the Collector of Customs, respondent No,3 in the petition, who maintained the finding of Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal with modification that amount of fine was reduced to Rs,10,000 vide his order, dated 2-2-1976. Against this order petitioners filed revision application before the Central Board of Revenue, respondent No,2 in the petition and this revision stands disposed of vide order, dated 4-10-1977. In this order it is held that goods in question are Cathode Tubes having various uses, correctly classifiable under heading 85.20 (A)(iii). Further fine has been reduced from Rs,10,000 to Rs,1,000. Being aggrieved against the orders of respondents, petitioners have filed this Constitutional petition.
2. Mr. Wajihuddin Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioners submitted before us that contention of petitioners was accepted. in revision by the Central Board of Revenue, which held that the goods imported are Cathode Tubes but due to some inadvertent typographical mistake in the order it is further stated that goods are Correctly classifiable under heading 85.20 (A)(iii). This is factually improbable that when the goods are held to be Cathode Tubes, they should be classified under heading 85.21(A) of P.C.T. Now if it was inadvertent typographical mistake, then clarification should have been sought from the Central Board of Revenue which has passed the order. It may be pointed out that the order in question was passed by the Central Board of Revenue on 4-10-1977 and the Constitutional petition was filed on 11-2-1978. No mention is made in the memorandum of petition that any attempt was made by the petitioners to seek clarification from the A Central Board of Revenue. In paragraph 5 of the memorandum of petition, it is stated that the Board conceded that the goods were Cathode Tubes but without any reasoning and absolutely arbitrarily classified them under P.C.T heading 85.20 (A)(iii). This clearly shows that the petitioners never treated the order of the Central Board of Revenue as containing a bona fide mistake but felt aggrieved against it for the reason that the goods were held to be classifiable under heading 85.20
(A) (iii). In this context perusal of heading 85.20 of P.C.T. shows that it relates to Electric Filament lamps and bulbs. Paragraph (A) further pertains to Filament lamps, discharge lamps (including fluorescent tubes); electrically ignited photographic flash bulbs. Further specification is provided in sub-paras. (i) and (ii).
(i) Two filament bulbs for minor's safety lamps Free
(ii) Filament lamps 500 watts and above 20% ad val.
(iii) Other 921% ad val.
' Sub-paragraph (iii) is left open to cover all other such filament lamps, discharge lamps and electrically ignited photographic flash-bulbs, which are not provided in sub-paras. (i) and (ii) as stated above. We feel that there is no inadvertent mistake in the order of the Central Board of Revenue and it is stated on purpose that goods in question are Cathode Tubes, which have been further described as having various uses conveniently covered under sub-para. 3 of heading 85.20 (A). By quoting heading 85.20 (A) (iii) specifically intention of Central Board of Revenue becomes very obvious that the goods in question have been held to be Cathode Tubes having uses covered by the sub-heading specifically mentioned. This we say for the reason that the order was passed by the Central Board of Revenue after perusal of connected record of the case and submissions made in writing as well as verbally on behalf of the petitioneRs, In both orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector of Customs, the finding is clear that goods in question are discharge lamps. Collector of Customs has held in his order in very unequivocal terms that the function of the tube is production of light through electric discharge and not that of. production of signals images as in a timing indicator. It is further held that item is correctly classifiable under heading 85.20 (A) (iii) of P.C.T., being of a special type, it falls under Serial No,87 (XXVI) of the Tree List to the Import policy which requires prior clearance from the C.C.I.&E.
3. Perusal of order of Assistant Collector of Customs, dated 6-8-1975 shows that it is more comprehensive in which the matter has been gone into in great detail and the contentions of the petitioners have been dealt with in a proper manner and cogent reasons are assigned for not accepting the goods in question as described by the petitioners but treated them as goods described by the Customs. About Cathode Rays Tubes, it is stated that they are such tubes in which the electrical signals are converted directly or indirectly into visible images. The electrons from the electrode after being focused, deflected, fall in the form of a beam on a part of the inner wall (usually the end of the tube) covered with fluorescent material which constitutes a screen showing the picture, which never sees. Cathode Ray Tubes are used in Television radar, oscilloscope or tuning indicators in the radio receivers (magic eyes). Order of Assistant Collector further shows that practical demonstration was held before him and the imported tubes could not produce any visible images or pictures as stated on page 1456 of the Explanatory Notes of Brussels Nomenclature. Petitioners also failed to show that the tubes could work as tuning indicators in the Radio Receiver or as a display articles in the date of processing or calculating Machine. The Assistant Collector, on the practical demonstra tion of the imported tubes, came to the conclusion that they with a help of resisters, gave green color light when plugged into the electric switch, which clearly prove that the imported tubes were discharge lamps (Fluorescent tubes) mentioned on page 1451 of the Explanatory Notes.
4. Mr. Wajihuddin Ahmed, Advocate submitted that petitioners had sent a sample of the imported tubes to the Philips Electrical Company of Pakistan Limited at Karachi for testing and the said Company, which is supposed to be the Authority on the technical side on the point in controversy, sent their report, dated 13th August, 1975 to the Customs Authorities, which was relied upon in support of the contention of the petitioners but the respondent did not pay any heed to it. Report Annexure 'E' of the petition on the record shows that the said Philips Company have examined the lamp and according to them it appears to be cold cathode type discharge lamp. This report does not support the contention of petitioners in totality because according to the Philips Company the tube is cathode type discharge lamp. On the other hand Customs authorities also say that it is a kind of discharge lamp classifiable under heading 85.20 (A) (iii).
5. In any case controversy between the petitioners and the respondents is a question of fact whether goods imported are classifiable under one heading or the other, on which finding given by three forums in the hierarchy of Customs (respondents 4, 3 and 2) are concurrent. Furthermore no such material has been produced before us by the petitioners on the basis of which findings of the respondents could be called in question. On behalf of the petitioners mala fides were attributed to the respondents and it was stated that right at the lowest ebb appraiser who sent the report of assessm ent to the Assistant Collector was prejudiced, hence his report was maintained in the upper forums but no material was produced to substantiate this contention. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that fine of Rs,30,000 imposed by respondent No,4 was reduced to 10,000 by respondent No,3 which was further reduced to Rs,1,000 by respondent No,2 shows that the respondents had morally agreed with the reasoning given by the petitioners for the description of goods claimed by them but we do not feel inclined to agree on this point for the reason that in the orders impugned before us, we find that the respondents are very firm in their view that the goods are of description as claimed by the Customs and not of the description as claimed by the petitioners, Reduction of fine by the respondents is just a matter of indulgence as they have discretion to reduce the same.
' For the facts and reasons stated above, we are of the view that no interference is called for as such petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.