1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The petitioner imported 1,075 Cartons of Pineapple in Syrup at the rate of C & F U.S.$ 3.48 per carton of 24 tins of 20 Oz each. The goods arrived on 12-5-1980 on board m.v.
2. President Roosevelt Voy.
3. 76.
4. ' The Bill of entry was submitted on the same day declaring the value of the goods as per invoice. It is alleged that the Customs' Authorities did not take any action and the petitioner wrote letter dated 14-6-1988 to the Collector of Customs complaining against the delay in clearance of the goods which had gone under demurrage w,e,f, 28-5-1980. The goods however were not allowed to be cleared and a show-cause notice was issued on or about 24-7-1980 by respondent No,3 alleging that the documents delivered and declaration/statement made by the petitioner were untrue in material particulars and there was contravention of section 32 of Customs Act, 1969. It was alleged that the goods were grossly under invoiced to evade substantial Government revenue.
5. The petitioner replied and stated that the show-cause notice was vague and did not give particulars of documents, declaration and statements. The basis of fixing the normal value was not disclosed nor it was shown whether it was based on transaction or information. It was further stated that the notice was had in law for having been, issued more than 2 months after the date of Bill of Entry. A personal hearing was afforded before respondent No,3 and it has been alleged that without taking into consideration the documents of the petitioner and the submissions made on its behalf order was passed on 12-12-1980 which was based on the invoice dated 25-1-1979 of Sindh Trading Company: It has been alleged that the facts and documents on which the order was based were not available at the time of hearing and the same were not disclosed to the petitioner.
6. The petitioner filed. Appeal against this order which was dismissed by respondent No,2. Revision was filed by the petitioner before respondent No,1 which was also dismissed.
7. ' Mr. J.H. Rahimtoola, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders are based on the invoice of Sindh Trading Company which was neither shown to the petitioner at any stage nor copy was supplied and no opportunity was given to rebut it and therefore the impugned orders arc illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel has also contended that notice under section 32 is illegal. The petitioner has made such allegation in paragraph 15 of the petition and the same has not been denied in the Counter-Affidavit. In reply it has simply been stated that "para 15 of the petition needs clarification that all such suggestions were given due consideration it the time of passing of order by respondent No, 3". The reply itself is so vague that in law it -admits the averments made by the petitioner. It is not the case of respondents that at any stage the invoice of Sindh Trading Company was produced or shown to the petitioner and an opportunity to rebut the same was afforded to it. On examination of the orders passed by the respondents it is clear that they have entirely relied upon the invoice of the Sindh Trading Company which is the basis of imposing penalty on the petitioner. In this regard reference can be made to . Indus Automobile Private Limited v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1988 Karachi 99) where the evidence relied upon by the Customs' Department was not disclosed to the importer, the case was remanded for re-determination of the value of the goods with the following directions: "15. We would, therefore, remand the above cases to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) with the direction to show the material to the petitioners on the basis of which the prices in the CGOs relied upon by the department were notified and also to provide the petitioners opportunity to produce in rebut the material which they wish to produce and thereafter to decide question, whether the impugned assessments have been made in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be entitled to file appeals and other proceedings competent under the Act before the forums providing for in case they are aggrieved by the above fresh orders.
8. ' The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs:"
9. ' The, learned counsel has referred to Customs' General Order No,25/1973 reproduced at page 651 of the General Manual of Customs Laws by Justice (Rtd.) Z.A. Chana which lays down guidelines for issuing notice under Section 32 of the Customs Act, the relevant part is reproduced as follows: " Inaddition to the standing instructions already issued in the past, the Board desires that the show- cause notices must contain the following particulars:
(i) In case involving misdeclarations of valise the price basis on which the declared values arc held to be misdeclared should be clearly stated and .Copy of the evidence on the basis of which it is so held should also be supplied to the party after omitting the names of the local importers of identical goods which are not required to be divulged to them.
(ii) The charges framed should be very. Clearly related to the applicable provisions of the law.
(iii) While fixing- a date for the hearing a reasonable time should be allowed to the respondent for properly examining the charge and the evidence given in the show-cause notice. And for making arrangements for the appearance of advocate on his behalf in case he so desires.
(iv) Wherever necessary a responsible official of the Valuation Branch should. Also be called in at the time of hearing to properly reply to questions raised by the respondent or his advocate. Show- cause .Notice should be issued without any avoidable delay whatsoever after the ' seizure or detention of the goods involved. After the receipt of reply to the show-cause notice cases should be decided as expeditiously as possible always bearing in mind that the goods under detention.
10. Are undergoing heavy port trust demurrage charges, which in many cases have -been found to exceed the value of the goods and the penalty imposed by Customs."
11. ' It is therefore, clear that Central Board of Revenue by this General Order had issued direction to the Customs Authority that Wherever a show-cause notice under section 32 is issued full particulars and evidence of the value on which reliance is placed by the department should not only be disclosed but its copy should be provided to the importer so that he may be in position to rebut it. The General Order issued by the Central Board of Revenue is binding on all officers of the Customs Department as provided by section 223 of the Customs Act subject to the provisions that such Order shall not interfere with the direction of the officers Of Customs in exercise of their quasi- judicial function. The direction under this General Order does not fall within this exception. It lays down a procedure for issuing notice under section 32 and ensures proper disposal of the case in a just and equitable manner. As the petitioner was not furnished with the relevant invoice of Sindh Trading Company at any stage of the hearing, following the principles laid down in the Indus Auto Mobile's case, we declare that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We remand the case to respondent No,3 for hearing it in the light of the principles laid down in the Indus Auto Mobile's case. Respondent No,3 shall disclose and furnish the evidence to the petitioners which he proposes to use against it to enable the petitioner to rebut it and defend itself. Respondent No,3 shall also take into consideration all such objections which may be raised by the petitioner and decide the case within a period of three months.