p>JUDGMENT ' Ajmal Mian, J.-- In above petition the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:--
(a) Declaring that the Notification at Annexure "E" fixing the landed cost at Rs,3,027 per Metric Ton in void ab initio and without lawful authorities as well as ultra vires of the Import of Goods (Prices Equalization Surcharge) Act of 1967 and that the petitioners are entitled to lift the goods allotted to them at the firm price of Rs, 2,477 per Metric Ton plus octroi without any penalty, already fixed by respondent No, 2 as an express condition of Delivery envisaged at Annexure "H".
(b) Declaring the respondents to withdraw the revised bill given to the petitioner firm at the unlawfully enhanced rate of Rs,3,027 per Metric Ton alongwith other additional charges levied by them and delivering the goods to them at the same rate and under the same conditions which were agreed upon and prevailed as per firm price letter at ' Annexure "H" and under which the other parties were allowed to lift the goods arriving on the same date in the same shipping period.
(c) Any other relief.
(d) Cost of proceedings."
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner imported certain quantity of M.S. Billets in March,1974. The consignment arrived through the ship, named s.s. Partizen Bonivur.
Respondent No, 1 under section 3 of the Import of Goods (Price Equalization Surcharge) Act, 1967, Act III of 1967 (hereinafter referred to as Act), issued a notification imposing a price equalization surcharge. The petitioner was made to pay the above surcharge. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above act, has filed the above petition.
3. (a) In support of the above petition Mr.Mohammad Wafi Yousufzai, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us as follows:-
(i) That the Act is not applicable to the instant case.
(ii) That even otherwise, highest landed cost was not determined in terms of section 4(2) of the Act.
(b) On the other hand, Mr.A.I.Chundrigar, learned Advocate for the respondent No,2, has contended that the Act is applicable to the instant case and the highest landed cost was determined in accordance with the law by the respondent No,1. He has further contended that in any case the instant case involves disputed questions of facts, which cannot be determined in a writ petition.
4. In furtherance of the above first contention Mr. Zai has referred to the preamble of the Act and section 4(2) and has vehemently urged that the above preamble read with section 4(2) presupposes the import of the scheduled items by a number of importers and not by one importer and since admittedly M.S. Billets were imported at the relevant time by respondent No,2 under the monopoly granted by respondent No,1, the above `Act has no application. It may be advantageous to reproduce hereinbelow the preamble of the Act and sections 3 and 4, which read as follows:-- "Preamble-- Whereas it is expedient to levy an additional duty for equalization of prices of certain goods imported at different prices under different conditions and from different countries and to provide for matters ancillary thereto;"
Section 3-- There shall be levied on the specified goods imported in any shipping period into Pakistan after the 22nd day of April 1966, or, if the Central Government in respect of any specified goods by order so directs, after such letter date as may be specified therein, whose rate of landed cost is lower than the highest rate, an additional duty as price equalization surcharge at the rate by which the rate of the landed cost of such goods falls short of the highest rate.
Section 4-- (1) The Central Government shall determine and by notification in the official Gazette, declare, in relation to every specified goods imported in any shipping period, the highest rate of landed cost of such goods.
(2) For the purpose of determining the highest rate, every importer of specified goods shall furnish at such time such papers, documents or information relating to the import of such goods, as the Central Government may direct.
(3) Whoever fails or neglects to comply with any direction under subsection (2) shall be deemed to have contravened the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (XXXIX of 1950), and shall be punishable under section 5 of that Act."
5. It may be noticed that as per preamble to the Act, the Act intended to empower the Central Government to levy any additional duty for equalization of price of certain goods imported at different prices under different conditions and from different countries and to provide for matters ancillary thereto, whereas section 3 empowered the Government by a notification to levy a price surcharge in respect of the goods specified in the schedule to the Act. Furthermore, section 4 contemplated that the Central Government may determine and by a notification official Gazette may declare in relation to the specified goods highest rates of landed cost for a shipping period and while determining the highest rate of landed costs of such goods under subsection (2) of section 4 of the Act, the Central Government may direct an importer to produce any such papers, documents or information relating to import of goods as it may consider necessary.
6. In our view, a plain reading of the quoted preamble and the sections of the Act indicates that in order to make the Act applicable it is not incumbent that the import should be made by a number of importers. It cannot be denied that M.S. Billets had been imported in the past as well as have been now imported from different countries having different prices and conditions. The impugned notification prima facie is intra vires of the Act.
7. Regarding the above second contention of Mr.Zai that even otherwise the highest landed cost was not determined by respondent No,1 in accordance with section 4 of the Act, it will suffice to observe that nothing has been brought on record to indicate that it was not fixed in terms of the above section. In any case, it is a disputed question of fact, which requires evidence and, therefore, cannot be ivnestigated into in a writ petition.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.