' NAIMUDDIN, J.-- The petitioner claims to have imported NOPSTRESS W/ELECTROLYTES under an import licence issued to it. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraisement-I, respondent No,1 by the letter, dated 11-3-1976, informed the petitioner that the goods have been assessed provisionally under the Heading 30.03 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff without charging duty and sales tax. He however, further stated therein that the samples have been sent for test and a provisional demand at the rate of 25 per cent under the heading 29.38 was issued in case the test report differed from the contention of the petitioner.
2. After having the Laboratory test, respondent No,1 issued a notice, dated 11-5-1977, under section 32 of the Customs Act whereby he informed the Petitioner that the goods have been inadvertently assessed under the P.T.C. Heading 30.03 without duty and sales tax instead of 23.07 resulting in a short levy of RS,7,072.10 in duty and RS,2,728 in Sales Tax and required the petitioner to make good the short levy amounting to RS,9,800.10 within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of notice.
The petitioner was however, informed that if it had any representation to make in regard to the notice it could do so within a period of 15 days and if it wanted to be heard in person or through its accredited representative or a duly briefed lawyer, they should appear on 29-6-1977, before respondent No,1. It was further informed that if no reply to the show-cause notice was received within the period specified or no one appeared at the time of hearing it would be presumed that the petitioner did not wish to contest the charges and demand would be enforced.
3. It is not the case of the petitioner before us that in response to the notice the petitioner made any representation or any one appeared on its behalf before respondent No,
1. Therefore, the demand became final and subsequently by nine letters, dated 27-7-1977, 3-11-1977, 19-11-1977, 27- 11-1977, 18-1-1978, 2-2-1978, 19-2-1978, 21-9-1978, 18-4-1978 and finally by the letter, dated 17-5-1978, the petitioner was required to make good the demand of RS,9,800.10 within 15 days. But the petitioner did not make good the demand and, therefore, the Customs Authorities sought to enforce the demand through coercive method. The Assistant Commissioner (South), Karachi, by the notice, dated 21-12-1978, required the petitioner to pay the dues. It is after the service of this notice that on 20-1-1979, the petitioner has filed this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Faizuddin learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Hamid Hussain learned counsel for respondent No,l.
5. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had remedy by way of appeal available to it. If it was aggrieved by the -demand besides having the opportunity to make representation against the notice of demand, it should have filed an appeal. But it did not avail of these remedies. We are, therefore, of the view that this is not a case in which we could interfere. Further, A this petition suffers from laches because the demand was made by the notice, dated 11-5-1977 and the petitioner did not take any step whatever until 20-1-1979, when this petition was filed. We accordingly, dismiss this petition but make no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.