1. ' HAIDER ALI PIRZ ADA , J.--The petitioner has claimed the fallowing relief :-
(a) "It be declared that Notification dated 25-4-1966, 12-7-1966, 19-8-1966 and 28-9-1966 and the Import of Goods (Price Equaliza tion) Surcharge' Act III of 1967 and all orders passed and actions taken thereunder and the levy of price differential and/or Price Equalization Surcharge the demands and recoveries made thereunder by the respondents No. 1 to 4 are ultra vires, illegal, void without jurisdiction and of no legal effect and that the imposition, levy, demand and recoveries of price differential and/or Price Equalization Surcharge had no legal force or warrant and consequently no such amounts were and are recoverable by the respondents and payable the petitioners.
(b) Directions may be issued to the respondents or one or more of the respondents liable to be so directed to refund to the petitioners the sum of Rs. 8,15,518.86 deposited by the petitioners or such amounts of deposit as have been paid by the petitioners to the respondents and the respondents may further be directed not to make such recoveries from the petitioners in future.
(c) The cost of this petition may be awarded to the petitioners.
(d) Any other or further relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem just, necessary, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioners."
2. ' The facts which give rise to this Constitution Petition are as follows:- ' The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 and is carrying on the business of manufacturing iron and steel products. By a Notification dated 25-4-1966 published in the Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), supplemented by another Notification dated 12-7-1966, the respondent No. 2 notified for general information that the import of iron and steel items would be subject to the conditions, inter alia, that:- "Importers shall be required to pay in addition to the C.I.F value, bank charges, Inspection Fee etc. and amount on account of Price Differential calculated on the basis of the average landed cost of imports during the last 12 months and the actual landed cost of imports to .be effected now."
3. ' The respondent No. 2 also notified that clearance from customs shall not be allowed unless Bank's Certificate regarding the payment of price differential is furnished. Notifications are annexed to the petition as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively. Another Notification was published in the Gazette of Pakistan dated 19-8-1966 which was partially amended by another Notification dated 28-9-1966, the respondent No. 2 in continuation of Notification dated 25-4-1966 notified the average landed cost of M.S. Billet for West Pakistan had been fixed at Rs.776.83. Copy of Notification is annexed to the petition as Annexure 'C'. To give effect to the above Notifications, the Banks were instructed' not to release documents relating to imported consignments of iron and steel until the payment of price differential imported under aforesaid notification by the importers. The respondent No. 4 also did not allow the clearance of such consignment unless satisfied that the importers have paid price differential in respect of those consignments.
4. ' By means of letter No. 1922/66-AID-1, dated 14-5-1966, the respondent No. 2 authorised the petitioner to import into West Pakistan 1650 tons of M.S.Billets from France, USSR and Korea besides further 1650 tons of M.S. Billets from Australia. By means of another letter dated 11-5-1966, the respondent No. 2 also authorised the petitioner to import M.S. Plates from U.K. for Rs. 6,770. In pursuance of the said authorisation granted to the petitioner by respondent No.2 the petitioner established letters of credit on different dates with Messrs United Bank Limited, Karachi, for L 41,051- 17-4d equivalent to Rs.4,78,598.03 for the import of aforesaid goods. They imported 1240 long tons of M.S. Billets from USSR in two consignments of 660 and 580 long tons. The petitioner also imported under the same authorisation 1638-7-0 long of M.S. Billets from Australia. The petitioner also imported M.S. Plates. worth Rs.6,770 from U.K. The aforesaid consignments arrived at Karachi on various dates and the State Bank of Pakistan demanded from the petitioners Bankers additional deposit amounts. The petitioner paid the deposits with the State Bank of Pakistan on behalf of the respondent No. 1 as Price Differential under the aforesaid Notification dated 25-7-1966 and 12-7- 1966.
5. ' In the meantime the Import of Goods Price (Equalization Surcharge) Act III of 1967 was passed and which came into operation on 5-6-1967.
6. ' Section 7 of the Act is in the followig terms:-- S.7. "Validation.-- The price differential levied and collected, or purported to have been levied and collected, by or in pursuance of the Ministry of Commerce Notification No. S.R.O. 49(R)/66, dated the 23rd April, 1966 or by or under any rule, order, notification or other instrument made or issued under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (XXXIX of 1950), shall, subject to necessary adjustment, be deemed to have been levied and collected as price equalization surcharge and the goods on which such price differential has been levied shall be deemed to have been declared to be specified goods as if this Act were in force at the time when such price differential was levied and collected".
7. ' Mr. S.M. Haider. Assistant Controller filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has denied various allegations made in the petition. It was averred that provisions of Act III of 1967 have expressly validated the amount charged under the Notifications. It was further averred that neither the landed cost was determined arbitrarily nor the demands made by the respondents were illegal or without lawful authority.
8. ' Mr.Maqbool Kazmi learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has raised a number of legal points but for the purposes of the disposal of the above petition, it will suffice to urge that the Act has not validated the levy. He has next contended that section 7 of the Act No.III of 1967 is ultra vires as it directs that the price differential levied and collected shall, subject to necessary adjustments, be deemed to have been levied and collected as Price Equalization Surcharge.
9. ' On the other hand, Mr. Aziz A. Munshi learned Deputy Attorney-General has contended that the Central -Government was legitimately levying and collecting Price Differential from the importers of M. S. Billets and M.S. Plates and other item in the Schedule to the Act.
10. ' Reverting to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 7 of the Act III of 1967 is invalid.
11. 'The legal question canvassed before us is whether section 7 of Act III of 1967 has achieved the purpose set by the legislature as the Notifications were issued after the conclusion of the contracts for the import of the goods inquestion. The transactions were past and closed and as such it cannot be given retrospective effect. The plain meaning of section 7 is that the material and relevant provisions of Notifications, orders actions and recoveries of the levy of Price Equalization Surcharge are included in section 7 and shall be deemed to have been included at all material times in it. In other words, what section 7 provides is that by its order and force, the levy of Price Equalization Surcharge will be deemed to have been recovered because the provision in relation to the recovery of the said levy of Price Equalization Surchage have been incorporated in the Act itself.
12. The command under which the levy would be deemed to have been recovered would, therefore, be the command of the legislature, because all the relevant notifications, orders and actions have been adopted by the statute itself.
13. 'It would be seen that the Act instead of making fresh provisions in the Act itslef, reference in the Act was made to notifications and orders which were already issued. The validating Act has removed the Lacuna and has validated the levy and collection of the Price Equalisation Surcharge retrospectively.
14. ' The next contention that the provisions as made by section 7 provides that highest rate as an additional duty as Price Equalization Surcharge and the notification provided Price Differential is again without any merit. When the provisions of section 7 are given effect to, then there is no conflict between the Price Differential and Price Equalization Surcharge.
15. 'Reverting to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding necessary adjustments, the provisions of section 7 only authorises the authorities to readjust the Price Differential levied and collected before commencement of the Act which is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and authorises authorities to make such orders so as to bring the previous levy in conformity with the Act. This provision has been enacted to entitle the authorities to bring the levy already collected in conformity with the provisions of the Act which should be agitated before the authorities concerned.
16. ' Our conclusion, therefore, that is the recovery of the Price Equalization Surcharge from the petitioner was duly validated under section 7 of Act III 1967 and it is not therefore, open to question.
17. ' For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.