1. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner to challenge the action taken by respondent No.1 in respect of a consignment of skimmed dry milk imported from Singapore. The background of controversy may be stated as follows.
2. The petitioner was granted Import Licence of the value of Rs. 85,31,445.00 which was valid for import of milk in concentrated powder, granules and other solid forms including non-fat dried milk in bulk packing other than in tins. The following endorsement appears on the face of import licence issued in favour of petitioner:- "Fit for human consumption"
3. The petitioner imported 7,964 bags of skimmed Milk under the aforesaid licence from Singapore.
4. This consignment arrived at Karachi in or about October. 1988 and it is admitted position that 95% of the consignment was cleared on 24-12-1988 while 5% of the consignment was detained in the warehouse. On 28-12-1988 the petitioner was served with a notice by respondent No.] which reads as under:-- "Directorate of Vigilance & Inspection (Customs Central Excise Sales Tax South Zone, Karachi) 19-A K.DA. Scheme No.1 Karsaz Road, Karachi. 28-12-1988.
5. To, Haji Muhammad Younus, Godown No.7, Near Hanifa Manzil, Gali No.1, Memon Society, Anwar Ghulam Hussain Road, Karachi.
6. Subject:Detention of consignment of Skimmed Milk Powder 5,000 bags approximately lying in the abovementioned Godown.
7. The above mentioned quantity of skimmed milk powder arrived as per I.G.M. No. Nil Index No. Nil as per "SS Ocean Sincerity" are hereby detained for investigation.
2. You are hereby directed not to remove the above mentioned goods until prior permission is taken from the Directorate, of Vigilance, Karachi.
8. Sd/- Illegible 28-12-1988 (Ishrat A.I)
9. Inspector Tele: 419477."
10. 1983 CLC 786 a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member, had the occasion of examining an order of this kind passed. By the Customs Authorities and it was held that a restraint order of the nature as is passed in the case before us, was violative pf both sections 168(2) and 171 of the Customs Act, 1969. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is unable to point out any provision of Customs Act under which the impugned order could be passed validly by respondent No.1. As the letter dated 28-12-1988 issued by respondent No.1 did not fulfil the requirements of Section 171 of the Customs Act, we declare the same as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, with regard to other prayer of petitioner, in the petition we are of the view that the same cannot be considered at this stage as respondent No.2 has already issued notice for adjudication proceedings which is neither challenged in this petition nor in our opinion it could .Properly form subject of this petition in which the petitioner had merely questioned the legality of the action of respondent No.1.
11. Mr. Naseem. Ahmad Farooqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issuance of show-cause notice dated 8-3-1989 is founded on the initial action of respondent No.1 taken on 28- 12-1988, and is merely designed to defeat the present proceedings. In view of our above order we do not feel necessary to decide this contention of petitioner. Mr. Farooqui also expressed the apprehension that in view of the declaration granted by this Court holding the action of respondent No.1 as without lawful authority, the respondent No.1 and Customs Authorities may harass the petitioner and delay the decision in the case so that the quality of the goods which is.
12. Perishable may deteriorate making it impossible for the petitioner either to sell it in the local market or re-export the same. We are confident that respondent No.2 will decide the proceedings initiated by him by issuing the notice dated 8-3-1989 in a fair and impartial manner without being impressed in any way by the action taken by respondent No.1 so far in the matter. There will be no order as to costs.
13. H.B.T./M-817/K Notice quashed.