1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--The petitioner has challenged in this petition the orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 4 whereby the goods imported by the petitioner were held of Taiwan origin and were confiscated under section 156(9) of the ~ Customs Act, 1969 and a redemption fine of Rs.
2. 82,000 was imposed in lieu of confiscation under section 181 of the Customs Act. The following are the brief facts of the case.
3. The petitioner was granted Import Licence for import of Polyester Texturized Yarn during the shipping period 1975-76. The petitioner accordingly placed an order with M/s. Ideal Corporation of Hong Kong for importing 'Sun and Bell' brand Polyester, Texturized Yarn and also established a letter of credit in their favour equivalent to US b 8,316. The aforesaid letter of credit established by the petitioner. Clearly stipulated that transhipment of the consignments was prohibited. According to bill of lading dated 12-5-1976 issued in favour of the petitioner the consignment was shipped per 'MING CHUNG'. This consignment reached Karachi in the month of July, 1986 and the petitioner filed bill of entry IGM No. 803 dated 13-7-1976. Usual documents namely, the bill of lading, invoices, copies of letter of credit etc. Were submitted alongwith the bill of entry. The Customs Authorities however, did not accept the bill of entry submitted by the petitioner as they took the view that the goods imported by the petitioner were of Taiwan origin which were prohibited from being imported in Pakistan under Paragraph 7 of the Import Policy published in the Gazette of Pakistan, extraordinary, dated 13th June, 1975. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 12-R-1975 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No .4 In reply to the show-cause notice the petitioner relied on the bill of lading, invoices and it was contended before respondent No. 4 that the goods were shipped from Hong Kong. However, respondent No. 4 did not accept the above contention and on the basis of certain entries which were noticed in the manifest filed by the Master of the ship and certain documents which were obtained from the shipping agent at Karachi it was held that the goods were actually shipped from 'Keelung' which is a port in Taiwan. As the respondent No. 4 reached the conclusion that the goods were shipped from a port in Taiwan he also held that the goods were of Taiwan origin, import whereof was prohibited and accordingly order of confiscation of the goods and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation was made. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 3 which it instated was accepted and by order dated 30-9-1976 orally announced by respondent No. 3 the consignment was ordered to be released. It is further alleged that in spite of the order of respondent No. 3 the consignment was not released for about nine months and thereafter the petitioner submitted a writ petition in this Court being Petition No. 356/77. During the pendency of above petition the Court was informed that the Central Board of Revenue (Respondent No. 2) has issued a notice dated 25th June, 1977 under section 195 of the Customs Act to the petitioner to show cause why the order passed by respondent No. 3 in appeal should not be recalled and re-examined. In view of this new development the petition was dismissed by thus Court by order dated 16th August, 1977. The petitioner after dismissal of the above writ petition submitted a reply dated 21st August, 1977 to the Central Board of Revenue. A copy of this reply has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure 'J' to the petition. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit in this petition but they have not disputed the genuineness or correctness of the document Annexure 'J'. In paragraph 3 of their letter dated 21st August, 1977 which the petitioner addressed to the Central Board of Revenue, in reply to the show- cause notice, the petitioner specifically stated that they have neither been supplied a copy of the order of respondent No. 3 nor the copes of the documents and evidence on the basis of which it has been concluded by respondent that the goods imported by the petitioner were of Taiwan origin. In the same paragraph 3 of their letter the petitioner requested the Central Board of Revenue to supply them the copies of those documents on the basis of which the authorities have reached the conclusion that the goods imported by the petitioner were not permitted for import under the Import Policy of 1975. The petitioner has repeated this assertion before us and has claimed that at no stage of the proceedings they were ever shown or made known the evidence which was relied upon against them in holding that the goods imported by them were of Taiwan origin. There is also no indication in the order of respondent No. 2 that before recalling the order of respondent No. 3 and holding that the goods imported by the petitioner were of Taiwan origin and were thus prohibited from being imported in Pakistan under the Import Policy of 1975, the petitioner was supplied with the copies of the documents and evidence on the basis of which the case was decided against them. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents also there is no mention that the request made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of their letter dated 21st August, 1977 was met by the Authorities before passing of the impugned order. It cannot be denied that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were of penal nature and in consequence thereof not only the goods imported by the petitioner could be confiscated but he could also be subjected to penalty under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. As the proceedings against the petitioner were of criminal nature it was necessary that the case against the petitioner should have been established beyond reasonable doubt before an action in accordance with section 156(9) of the Customs Act, 1969 could be taken against them. We are accordingly of the view that the respondents were under obligation to supply the petitioner all the copies of the documents which were being used against the petitioner in arriving at the conclusion that item imported by them was prohibited or that the same was of Taiwan origin. As the requirement of law was not complied with we declare the orders passed by respondent No. 3 dated 11th October, 1977 and that of respondent No. 1 dated 8-4-1979 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We further direct that in the circumstances of the case the respondent No. 2 will rehear the case after supplying copies of all the documents to the petitioner and shall dispose of the same m accordance with the law. As the matter originally started in 1976 we further direct that a decision will be taken by respondent No. 2 in this behalf within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order There will be no order as to costs.