JUDGMENT SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUL C.J.-l.-This petition is fixed for Katcha Peshi and hearing of application. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record produced before us, we are of the view that this petition can be disposed of finally. The contention of the petitioner is that they imported a consignment containing iron scrap from Japan but in the Bill of Lading the name of the party to be notified was shown as Ginza Motors Karachi. On arrival of consignment the petitioner applied for amendment of the Bill of Lading under section 45 of the Customs Act which was allowed and in the Bill of Lading in place of Ginza Motors, the name of the petitioner was inserted as the party to be notified. Alongwith the petition, the petitioners have filed a certificate from the supplier dated 26th August, 1991 in which it is stated that the name of Ginza Motors was entered in the Bill of Lading through an error but later on it was corrected and the name of petitioner who is real importer of the goods was incorporated. It is an admitted position in the case that there are no shipping marks on the consignment. The consignment was intercepted at Karachi port by the Customs Intelligence Department, who had the information that the consignment did not contain iron scrap but automobile spare parts. Accordingly notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause that why the consignment should not be forfeited on account of the contravention of the Customs Laws. The petitioner has challenged the above action of the Directorate of Customs Intelligence and it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the consignment was meant for Dry Port Lahore, the authorities at Karachi had no jurisdiction to detain the said consignment. It is common ground between the parties that the instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Customs General Order No. 15 of 1989, dated 21st October, 1989, applied in the case. It will therefore, be useful to reproduce here the aforesaid instructions of the Central Board of revenue which are as follows:-- "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE C. No. 11(2) L&P/73. Pt. III. Islamabad the 21st October, 19S9. CUSTOMS GENERAL ORDER NO. 15/1989 SUBJECT: TRANSHIPMENT OF IMPORTED CARGO TO THE UP-COUNTRY DRY PORTS. It has been brought to the notice of the Central Board of Revenue that some times the personnel of the Customs agencies such as the Directorate of Vigilance and Inspection (Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax), Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax), Controller of Customs Valuation, Internal and External Audit agencies detain at Karachi imported cargo meant for transhipment of inland dry ports. Since detention of such cargo at the port of transhipment causes unnecessary delay in its transhipment to the dry ports and inconvenience to the importers, the Central Board of Revenue has decided to issue the following instructions with a view to ensuring smooth flow ot transhipment cargo from the port of transhipment to inland dry ports: ~ (i) Transhipment (TP) of imported cargo (including unaccompanied baggage) to the up-country ports shall invariably be allowed on the applications filed by the authorised representatives of the approved carriers viz. The Pakistan Railways, the National Logistic Cell (NLC) or an other public or private carrier authorised in this behalf, it the address of the party to be notified is of an up-country destination or the marks and numbers on the Bill of Lading indicate an up-country destination via Karachi Transhipment in these cases shall be allowed irrespective on the place of issue of import licence or of opening of L.C Such goods shall not be detained or examined at Karachi b; any of the Customs agencies including the Custom House Karachi notwithstanding any information which such agencies might possess regarding misdeclaration or other contraventions suspected to be involved in such consignments. If there is any authentic information with any of those agencies which could lead to detection ol contraventions, it should be passed on to the respective Collectors or Deputy Collectors of Customs-Incharge of the dry ports and in case of Directorates to their own offices at port of destination for necessary action at that end. (ii) The authorities at the inland dry ports shall deal with the transhipment cargo with reference to the information received by them under para, (i) of this order. The Collector or Deputy Collector Incharge of the dry port concerned shall intimate tp the information giving agency) their findings and where any contraventions have been established, copy of the show-cause notice issued and the Order-in-Original passed shall be endorsed to the concerned agency. (iii) Custom House shall not allow transhipment in cases where the party to be notified (on the Bill of Lading) is based at Karachi or the marks and numbers on the Bill of Lading do not indicate up-country destination.
2. No transhipment shall be allowed for the items specified in SRO 125(I)/83, dated 12th February, 1983 (copy enclosed). (Sd). (Dr. Afaque Ahmad), Second Secretary (T&W). (Enel. Copy of SRO No. 125(1)/83, dated 12th February, 1983)." 2.
The case of the petitioner is that the consignment imported by them is covered under sub- paragraph (i), while Mr. Naeemur Rehman, Standing Counsel contended that, firstly, the consignment is covered under sub-paragraph (iii) of the aforesaid instructions and in the alternative it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel that even if it is held that instructions contained in sub-paragraph (i) of the above memo, applied in the present case, then also the conditions prescribed under that paragraph were not fulfilled and therefore the consignment was rightly detained at Karachi.
3. We have already reproduced above the letter containing the instructions issued by the C.B.R, regarding transhipment of imported cargo to up-country dry ports.
After going through the same we are of the view, that under sub-paragraph (i) of the above instructions, if the address of the party to be notified is disclosed in the Bill of Lading as of an up- country destination or the mark and numbers on the Bill of Lading indicate an up-country destination via Karachi, then in that case the consignment cannot be detained at Karachi.
However, if any misdeclaration or suspected contravention is discovered in respect of such consignments, the information is to be conveyed to the respective Collector of Customs or Deputy Collector of Customs, Incharge of Dry Port or the Directorate of Intelligence at the dry port. These instructions are applicable both in cases where either the notifying party as indicated in the Bill of Lading is situated in up-country destination, or the shipping marks on the consignment indicate the up-country destination via Karachi. In the case before us it is admitted position that the Bill of Lading was allowed to be amended under section 45 of the Customs Act and the name of the notifying party has been shown as Allied International Lahore and therefore in terms of the instructions referred to above transhipment of consignment to the Dry Port Lahore should have been allowed. In our view the absence of shipping marks on the consignment, could not give jurisdiction to the Directorate of Customs Intelligence, Karachi to detain the consignment at Karachi Port when the address of notifying party was shown at Lahore. In such a case if the respondents had discovered any contravention of Customs Law by the importer, they should have allowed the consignment to proceed to its destination namely the dry port at Lahore and notified its offices there for action or convey the above information to the Collector or Deputy Collector of Customs at Dry Port as was required under the Law.
4. The learned standing counsel also contended that the present case is covered under sub-paragraph (iii) of the instructions and as such the action taken by the respondent was justified. Paragraph (iii) of the instructions clearly states that transhipment is not to be allowed in cases where the party to be notified on the Bill of Lading is based at Karachi or the mark and numbers on the Bill of Lading do not indicate up- country destination. The Bill of Lading is the present case shows the address of notifying party as of Lahore, and therefore in our view instructions contained in paragraph (iii) of the letter are not applicable in the present case.
5. We accordingly allow the petition and declare the detention of the consignment at Karachi as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and further direct the respondents to allow transhipment of consignment to Lahore Dry Port which is shown as the destination of consignment in the Bill of Lading. There will be no order as to costs.