1. JUDGMENT.
2. SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 dated 5-5-1979, 4-12-1979 & 28-10-1980 respectively in this petition. The following are the facts in brief.
3. The petitioner imported 28583 K.Gs of un-manufactured American Tobacco from U.S.A. Which arrived at Karachi in or about November 1977, and was kept in bonded warehouse. Out of the above quantity of 28583 K.Gs of Tobacco, 5110 K.Gs was cleared on 2-1-1978 vide bill of entry bond No.1 in which the amount of Customs Duty was erroneously shown as 2,76,694.35, instead, of 2,36,694.34. Thus an amount of Rs.40,000 was paid in excess of the amount which was payable as Customs Duty on the aforesaid quantity of Tobacco cleared on 2-1-1978. It is asserted in paragraph 6 of the petition that in or about December 1978 petitioner discovered the above clerical mistake in the bond entry No.1 dated 2-1-1978 and immediately applied to respondent No.1 for refund of the amount of Rs.40,000. It is alleged m the petition that respondent No.1 without affording any hearing to the petitioner vide order dated 1-5-1979 dismissed; the claim of the petitioner as time-barred. An appeal filed before respondent No.2 also failed on 19-5-1979 and a further Revision was also dismissed' by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 28-10-1980. The petitioner has challenged the above order in this petition and it is contended by Mr. Nizam Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are illegal as the respondents while rejecting the application of the petitioner failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them under section 224 of Customs Act which authorised them to extend the period of limitation if they were satisfied that the delay was bona fide and would result in some hardship, to the petitioner. It is further contended by learned counsel that apart from section 224, clerical error and accidental slips could also be corrected under section 206 of the Customs Act for which no period of limitation is prescribed. The respondents have been duly served in the case but 1 they failed to put in appearance and no counter affidavit has been filed in the case by them. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the view that the rejection of the claim of petitioner by the respondents without applying their mind to the provision of sections 200 and 224 of the Customs Act was arbitrary. We accordingly allow this petition, declare the orders passed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result would be that the application riled by the petitioner for refund of the amount will be deemed to be pending before respondent No.1 who will dispose of the same in accordance with law: As the matter relates to the over payment; made in the year 1978 we further direct respondent No.1, to dispose of this case. As quickly as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt, of thus order.
4. There will be no order as to costs.
5. H.B.T./P-105/K