AJMAL MIAN, J.-1. These are two petitions, whereby the petitioners have impugned the demand made by the respondents for the additional custom duty in respect of the consignments referred to in the two petitions.
2. In support of the above petitions Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi learned counsel for the petitioners has urged as follows:--
(i) that the effect of S.R.O. 37(0/72, gazetted on 12th May, 1972 in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary was to grant exemption from the payment of additional customs duty which was payable under section 9 of the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972.
(ii) That since the demand for the additional customs duty was not made within four months from the date of the alleged non-payment as the show-cause notice was issued after the expiry of the limitation period four months, therefore, it was not legal and no action in pursuance thereof, can be sustained
(iii) That the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity to meet the case.
3. As regards the first contention of Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be pertinent to observe that S.R.O, referred to by the learned counsel was issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) providing that goods specified in column 2 of the table below and falling within the heading numbers of First Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1974 (XXXIII of 1974) specified in column 1 of said table shall be exempt from so much customs duty leviable thereon is in excess of the rates of duty specified in the corresponding entries in column 3 of that table, it may also be observed that according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the subject matters of the consignments were covered by Item of ITC Nos. 40.14, 73.32, 73.36, 84.10, etc. It will suffice to quote one of the items which reads as follows:-- "40.14 (i) Other articles of unhardened vulcanised rubber (ii) Rubber sheets for the manufacture 20% ad val." of stoppers for pharmaceutical industry. {{WORDS MISARRANGED}} It may be observed that the above S.R.O, provides the rate of ad valorem duty which was payable from the date of the enforcement of the above S.R.O, in our view, the above S.R.O, has nothing to do with section 9 of the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972 which reads as follows:-- "9. Additional Customs duty.--There shall be levied and collected an additional customs duty at fifty-five per cent ad valorem on the goods specified in the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1934 (XXXII of 1934), in respect of which either payment in foreign exchange has been made or forward exchange has been booked before the commencement of this Ordinance."
A plain reading of the above-quoted section indicates that under the above provision, it was provided that there shall be levied and collected an additional customs duty at 3 5% ad valorem on the goods specified in the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1934 (XXXII of 1934) in respect of which either payment in foreign exchange has been made or forward exchange has been booked before the commencement of this Ordinance. In the instant case, it has not been disputed by the petitioners that the goods were imported against the foreign exchange and the goods fall within the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, We are inclined to hold that section 9 of the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance is a charging section itself which does not contemplate the issuance of any notification in order to put it into operation The respondent was entitled under section 9 to levy and recover 55% in addition to the rates of duty specified in the S.R.O, relied upon by Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi.
4. Reverting to the second contention that the show-cause notice was served after the expiry of period of four months. It may be mentioned that the show-cause notice was issued on 24th September, 1973. According to the petitioner they had sent a reply on 26-9-1973 acknowledging the receipt of the above notice. It has not been stated in the reply that the above show-cause notice was received on 26-9-1973 or on 25th September, 1973. It may also be mentioned that according to the respondent this reply was never received but this fact has been disputed by the petitioners. In our view, it is not necessary to go into the above controversy. The fact remains that notice was issued on 24th September, 1973, whereas the petitioners had paid short customs duty on 26th May, 1973 and, therefore, it was within four months from the date of short payment.
5. As regards the last contention, it may be observed that it was vehemently urged by Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi learned counsel for the petitioners that after the receipt of the petitioners, reply, dated 26-9-1973, the respondent did not send any further communication to the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners presumed that the explanation was accepted. The above presumption has nothing to do with the question, whether the petitioners were given opportunity to put up their case. In the show-cause notice, dated 24th September, 1973 it was stated that the hearing of the case had been fixed on 15th October, 1973 on which date the importers, their accredited representatives or duly approved lawyers may appear to represent the case. In our view, if the petitioners failed to avail of this opportunity which was given to them, they cannot complain of violation of principle of natural justice, particularly in view of the fact that in the aforesaid show- cause notice about 3 weeks time was given for appearance.
For the aforesaid reasons the petitions are dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.